Thoughts on the creation of two minds as we age and their conflict, with remarks on the effects of identity

Recently, I was mentioning that it seems that, as we age, there develops something like a dual personality and that, sometimes, they are in conflict with each other. This creates some unique phenomena as we age.

TWO MINDS

I said that, as we get older we develop two mind’s that are as if working at the same time:

1. The social mind
2. The mundane mind

1-The social mind

As we grow into adulthood this becomes dominant in our minds. This is because youth is learning the ways of society and adulthood is living it. Because of this, it is the part of us that follows social expectations, needs, responsibilities, etc. It is based in social realities, and this is what it follows. What ends up happening is that a “social-based identity” is created. This becomes the basis of how we view ourselves. Because it plays such a big part in life it becomes very dominating.

2-The mundane mind

As we live our lives year after year, we develop a mind that follows the humdrum of life. That is to say, it is the part of us that deals with the mundane of life. This humdrum is not social, nor does it follow social realities. As a result, it develops characteristic and traits that have nothing to do with society. It tends to follow one’s day-to-day habits that one develops through the years. It is that part of us that deals with everyday things that we often aren’t even conscious of . . . brushing our teeth, walking down the hall, the act of eating, waiting for the traffic light to turn green, etc. In many ways, as we live life these humdrum and mundane things take up more of our life and, accordingly, more of our energy. Because of this, it becomes more of our life, though we may not be aware of it. As a result, the social mind, and social reality, tends to fade in the actual doing of life. The mundane mind seems to become more prevalent when one gets in their 50’s.

CONFLICT OF THE TWO MINDS

As we grow from youth into adulthood the social mind becomes dominant. One reason for this is that our identity is found in this self. This makes us who we are. As a result, it establishes the “me”. But because the humdrum of life plays such a big role as we get older a part of life the mundane mind starts to become dominating. As a result, the mundane mind keeps “popping in” more and more as we get older. This is because, in daily life, it becomes more important than the social mind. But the social mind has created the “me” which we tend to base ourselves and life on. And so, when the mundane mind “pops in” it is perceived as something different and out-of-the-ordinary. Sometimes, it doesn’t seem like a part of the “me”. This creates many weird behaviors and happenings that appear as one ages. Sometimes it can appear as if something is wrong.

There seems to be several conflicts between the mind’s:

• The mundane mind takes over completely . . . this makes us do weird things
• The social mind can’t make sense of what the mundane mind did . . . this makes us bewildered over our behavior

In some sense, it’s like two minds are fighting inside us. Sometimes, it can seem like a multiple personality. In some ways it is and some people have more of a problems with it than others.

Some examples of how the mundane mind is dominant include:

• We’re not “on the ball”
• We live in our own world
• We are oblivious to what is going on around us
• We forget things
• We say things that don’t make sense
• We do things that don’t make any sense
• We don’t care about social conventions

Some examples of how the social mind can’t make sense of what the mundane mind does include:

• We start to do something and can’t remember what it was
• We have a hard time understanding why we do things

Sometimes, these lead to a sense of self-doubt. They are often explained as “I must be getting old” or “I must be losing it” or something similar. For some people, this self-doubt can turn into something more serious. It can create something like a hypochondria, that there is “something wrong”. Perhaps we could call this “old age hypochondria”? It can get bad where people start to feel that they are going down hill fast or have some serious ailment like Alzheimer’s or dementia. Just like a hypochondria, once they start to believe it they start to “find” symptoms and problems which can make it get worse.

These all describe a conflict of the two minds. It can make older people appear detached, disconnected, impaired, and “not with it”.

EFFECTS OF THE CONFLICT

It seems, to me, that the conflict of the two minds cause several interesting effects that seems to make us appear to age quicker:

• When the mundane mind becomes influential, and we are unaware of it, it seems to make a person age quicker.
• The denial or refusal of the effects of the mundane mind, by the social mind, seems to make a person age quicker.

To me, the effects of the conflict seems to show that trying to remain in the social mind is not healthy as we get older. In fact, it seems to make us age quicker.

As we age it seems that it is best to move away from the social mind and become more aware of the mundane mind. This means doing things such as:

• Being more aware of the act of “doing”
• More of an emphasis on “being”
• Noticing the everyday things in life more
• Not being preoccupied with social conventions and realities
• Not thinking so much (as when we think we use words which are social-based)

IDENTITY

All this seems to suggest that, as we age, we need to be more accepting of the mundane part of life and our self. This awareness even needs to become part of new identity. It seems that we need to change our identity from a “social-based identity”, of the social mind, to what can be described as a “being-based identity” more based in the mundane mind. In other words, we must create a new identity, an “older person identity”. It seems that this being aware of the effects of the mundane mind, and making it a part of our identity, creates a more stable “older person identity” and seems to help one age in a healthier way.

The creation of this identity, I think, is not as easy as it sounds. Its like a re-forging of the self. Many people, it seems, think that old age is a “resting” as if all the conflict of life fade and they don’t have to do anything anymore. I tend to think that its the opposite. In older age new conflicts are created that we have to deal with. To remain in the social mind holds us down, it seems. It makes us stuck in the past in what we were.

===

For something similar see this article: Thoughts on the change in remembering from the “younger mind” to the “older mind”

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on how the era of the “best candidate” is over . . . how things have become too complicated

Recently, I said some interesting about the elections of Presidents in the US that got onto some interesting things:

I said that Presidential elections are no longer about who the best candidate is for the country but who is the lesser of two evils. This, I said, is because no one person can satisfy all the people and solve all the problems. There’s no way this can happen anymore. There’re too many people, too many points of view, and too many different situations. No one person can make everyone happy or solve all the problems. This means that no matter what they do someone is going to be disaffected in some way. In other words, there’s always going to be problems no matter who is chosen. In this way, choosing a President is really a question of “do you want this person’s problems or that person’s problems?” To put it another way, the question is “do you want the person who will solve your problems and cause problems for other people or the person who will solve other people’s problems and cause problems for you?”. The era of the best candidate for the country seems to be over.

I also said that this shows how complicated things have become. This fact, I don’t think, is fully realized. Things have become so complicated that no one can even comprehend what’s going on. No one can understand all the situations, conditions, and realities that are going on nowadays. And no one can even create a “model” of how it all fits together. No one can really foresee the effects of things either. Humanity has become an enormous and massive complicated labyrinth. I often think that the complexity of things is underestimated. In this age of science we all “think” we know what’s going on but, unbeknownst to us, we are actually understanding less and less. It seems that we now need to learn some humility and realize that we simply don’t know or can’t know nor can we expect someone else, like a President, to know. The complexity of things have put us in a new situation in history.

Some of the things that seem to cause this complexity include:

• The varieties of situations . . . no one can possibly know these
• The varieties of peoples . . . no one can possibly take all people into consideration
• The varieties of opinions . . . there’s simply too many
• The fact that there are too many “right ways” to look at things . . . many peoples points of view are right, but they often contradict each other
• The complexity of organization and organizations . . . this has become like a maze
• The reliance on things, like technology, that we don’t have control over . . . we’ve trapped ourselves in our own creations and we are now subject to them
• The problems of social phenomena, such as mass mentality, social hysteria, and such . . . these are often unpredictable and behave in unexpected ways
• The fact that we have become dependent on too many things . . . by being dependent we lose control, blindly follow, and understand less
• The belief that we can develop a “theory” to explain it all . . . this deceives us
• The belief that there is “one answer” or “one explanation” . . . this misleads us

These have all contributed to create the incredibly complex situation we are now in.

In some sense, the complexity of things have made someone like the President as the “answer all” redundant and useless. In some sense, the President is out-of-date as a person who solves things. No one can truly do that. In fact, the reality is that a person, organization, or theory can only partially solve things. They cannot solve everything. This situation puts us in a precarious situation nowadays and I sort of think it is one of the struggles and dilemma’s of the times.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on boredom and its association with relaxation

I think its important to relax but I find that is not as easy as it sounds. Boredom often becomes a problem. Boredom has always been hard for me. There always seems a particular “pain” associated with it. I often compared it to a “grind” or that something was pressing down on me like a great weight.

I feel that boredom hides tension. It seems that in boredom tension often comes out in a very pure way. Because of this, boredom is a good way to explore ones tension. This tension prevents relaxation.

Types of boredom

It seems that there are two types of boredom:

1. When you find yourself with nothing to do
2. In relaxing

These boredoms are really the same. The difference is that the boredom is being instigated by different causes. In the former you “find yourself bored”. In the later you put yourself in a condition that tends to promote boredom. In this article I’m primarily speaking of the later version.

The experience of tension

By “tension” I mean a sense of a tug-of-war that develops in ones self. It can appear as:

• A pain, ache, pressure, or grind
• An irritability or easily getting bothered by things
• An inability to relax or calm down
• A fidgetiness
• A mind that won’t quit thinking
• An emptiness
• A feeling that one has no direction
• A feeling that one has done nothing or is wasting time
• A dejection, sense of loss, or depression

Types of tension

It seems, to me, that there are different types of tension. These include:

• A natural desire to do – This often refers to the natural need to do something. In this way, boredom shows a desire to do something in life. When a person does nothing it often brings this desire out. It seems that the only solution to this tension is to do something.
• Stress – This refers to a condition that causes concern, worry, and such.
• Conflict – This is something that is currently bothering you.
• Habit – Some tension is a tension that one has had for so long that it has become habit. In other words, its actually irrelevant and meaningless but we have gotten used to it and won’t let it go. This type of tension is not as easy to get rid of as it seems.
• Neurotic tension – This refers to some “issue” or personal conflict that one has. It is often deep-rooted.
• Self-growth – This refers to the self struggling to grow. It tends to take on a more spiritual quality. It often seems to appear like a yearning or a want, of a desire for “something more”. It can also get into what can be described as “existential problems”, of what the purpose of life is and such.

Relaxation

I tend to feel that there is a close association between boredom and relaxation. In some respects, boredom is one of the main things that one confronts when one tries to relax. To put it another way, relaxation is a coming to terms with the tensions of boredom. This means that, in relaxation, the tensions caused by boredom don’t exist. Its because of this that the experience of boredom is a good time to explore ones tensions and its source. Exploring ones tensions helps one to relax, I think.

Exploring

Exploring the tension in boredom is really like a psychological therapy. I think that there are similarities. This exploring, at least for me, happens almost every time I get bored. Its like I am asking myself, “so what does this boredom mean?” or “what’s behind this boredom?” I often ask questions like these:

• Is it a natural desire to do?
• Is it stress?
• Is it a conflict?
• Is it habit?
• Is it neurotic?
• It is self-growth?

The idea is to narrow things down and determine which type of tension it is.

One must react to this exploring. For example, if I feel that it is a natural desire to do something then I start to do something. If it is neurotic then I try to look for its source.

The self – Beingness

When the tension reflects a self-growth then it seems, to me, that this is where relaxing has value. In a way, that is when one truly relaxes. It shows that relaxing isn’t a sitting stagnant doing nothing but something more. Relaxing is associated with the self and it can reflect the state or maturity of the self. Perhaps it would be better to call this form of relaxing a “beingness”. In a way, by reducing tension and relaxing the self is allowed to “be”. But in order to do this the self must have reached a specific level of growth and maturity. This is one reason why a person who isn’t easily bored, and sit and be calm and content, is often a sign of grown or mature self. Many people, though, do not have this growth or maturity. As a result, its not uncommon that the tension caused by boredom is really the self growing or trying to grow.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on getting rid of guns in the US

I recently have seen a number of people mention how we need to get rid of guns in the US. Naturally, there are all sorts of reasons, and fancy explanations, to justify it. I’ve always had a simple explanation:

“The right to bear arms is one of the earliest acts of the US government. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. There is nothing more to be said about it.”

I don’t care about the justifications for or against guns. These don’t matter. It is guaranteed by the Constitution. Everything else is subsidiary.

Here are some further thoughts on it:

• To take away the right to bear arms we would be taking away rights from the people which has been given by the government from the beginning of the US. That’s nothing to look at lightly and, to me, is a serious issue.
• To get rid of the right to bear arms would be a change to the ideals of the country. What are these new ideals going to be?
• I have always felt that if we were to get rid of the right to bear arms then what’s next? Do we want to open that door? Once its open what more will be taken from us?
• The only thing that approaches a legitimate argument against guns, that I see, is gun violence. But this is done by a minority of the population. We cannot take away the guns of millions of people for what a minority of the population does. If we do this then we are letting the minority rule the country, so to speak. More importantly, we do not want to get rid of a right that has been guaranteed by the Constitution, and meant for all the people, because of what a minority of the population does. That’s more or less having the minority dictate our rights and our political principles. There must be found some other way to solve this problem.
• Some people have a ridiculous neurotic fear of guns. Some people are scared of anyone who owns a gun, as if that person is going to go around shooting people. Some people won’t even hold a gun. This is utterly ridiculous and unjustified. Just because one person commits a crime with a gun doesn’t mean that everyone with a gun does. My feelings is that we don’t want to cater to these types of ridiculous neurotic fears.
• I do believe that if we take away guns from the common people then the only people who will have guns are criminals.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on the effects of the idea of being “chosen” – a source for religious, political, and social problems, with remarks on its possible origin in Ancient Egypt???

In a conversation I said something interesting.

“CHOSENISM”

We got in a conversation about how horrible religious wars can be and how deeply the feelings are with religion. Generally, you don’t even want to talk to people about religion. I said that normally we say that its religion that causes these problems, but it seems to me that this is not correct. For example, primitive people are religious, and they don’t have religious problems and wars. There are also many other religions in the world, and they don’t have these problems. They don’t go around fighting against each other, and such. This means that it isn’t religion that is causing the problem but something else.

I said that the problem is that they think that they represent God. That is to say, they believe that they are chosen by God. Because of this, they view themselves as “special” compared to other people, God-favored. I jokingly called this mentality “chosenism” and the people who believe it the “chosenists“.

THE “CHOSEN”

Initially, to be “chosen” means that they believe that they are chosen by God in some way. This appears in ways such as:

• They believe they are blessed and have special favors from God that other people don’t have
• They believe that they represent God
• They view themselves as set apart from everyone else
• They think that they are chosen by God to save everyone else
• They think that everyone else must believe what they believe as this will save them

As time went on the religious element would fade or disappear and other means of being “chosen” appeared. Most of these variations took place in Europe and created a unique form of “European chosenism” (see below). It appears to be based on the religious “chosenism” but was modified, or things were added to it, to fit the culture, times, and conditions. These forms of “chosenism” often appeared in ways such as:

• Being favored in some way, having something other people don’t have
• Being praised, of having people view you highly
• Being better, which often means having a quality that is socially esteemed
• Being self-righteous, that when you say its right its right
• Being superior, viewing oneself as being almost god-like compared to other people
• Being higher, of seeing oneself as above other people in some way, such as in social status
• Being richer, having more money, material objects, etc.
• Being privileged, able to do things other people can’t do
• Being arrogant, of walking around as if you can do whatever you want
• Being more esteemed, of society praising you, being popular, etc.

AN IRONY

One of the things that is apparent is that “chosenism” tends to create two things that are opposed to each other and end up creating an irony:

1. Unity
2. Conflict with others

1-Unity

“Chosenism” tends to create a unity in people. This no doubt is because it creates something that bonds people together.

This unity may be the appeal of “chosenism” and one of its greatest’s strengths. I’ve often wondered if this point of view began with the Jews who remained a very unified group during the turmoil of the middle eastern conflict. I wouldn’t be surprised that this unity may be one of the reasons why they have persisted so long.

2-Conflict with others

The idea of being “chosen”, and the unity it creates, seems to cause a condition where people are pitted people against other people who are different. This causes things like:

• An alienation from others – it can cause some some of the “chosen” to be removed from everyone else causing weird ideas about themselves, other people, and the association between people
• A separation between people – the “chosen” and the “unchosen” – that can be like a wall that causes conflicts
• The development of bad feelings between people
• Violence between people

It seems that “chosenism” naturally causes conflicts between people by building a wall between people.

The resulting effects

Both of the above traits create a point of view that reflects conflict between different people. It seems to follow a path like:

1. It seems to be created as a reaction to a conflict between people
2. This causes them to emphasize the unity of their group, as a means to hold it together
3. Its point of view ends up causing conflict between people

In other words, it begins and ends with conflict between people. It holds their group together but the conflict, in a way, is not solved.

This suggests that “chosenism” is a result of conflict between people and is a way to deal with that conflict. The problem is that its mentality guarantees conflict with people by doing things such as:

• By creating a wall between people
• By setting themselves apart from others
• By making themselves better
• By the devaluation of others

In other words, as long as there is “chosenism” there will be conflict between people. “Chosenism”, by its nature, causes people to be at odds with other people.

DEVELOPMENT

I am not all that familiar with the history of this mentality as I just defined it, but it seems that this mentality began in the middle east. It seems to have three main contributions:

1. Judaism
2. Christianity
3. Islam

All these preach that they are chosen, in some way or another.

1-Judaism

It appears that “chosenism” began with Moses and the Jewish people as they viewed themselves as the chosen people of God. This created an attitude of “we’re chosen and . . . (hint, hint) . . . you’re not”. It created an attitude of exclusiveness.

This had several effects:

• It held the Jewish people together as a group. This appears to of cemented them closer together in conflicts than most people. I often though that this exclusiveness is one reason why the Jews remained a distinct group while many other people’s fell to conflict in the middle east.
• It appeared to of created something like a snobbery and a “you’re not part of our group” mentality. For example, in Leviticus xx, 24 it says “I am Jehovah your God, which have separated you from the nations”. I have often speculated that this may be a source of antisemitism as this exclusive mentality tended to create tension with many people (see my article Some thoughts on the possible nature and origin of anti-Semitism???).

The following two religions are descendants of Judaism and have therefore inherited this exclusive attitude. They, though, tended to add some new qualities and change it a bit.

2-Christianity

Christianity brought in the element that “you must change to our way of life”, of the conversion of other people. It was not violent at first but slowly turned violent, particularly in Europe. It seems that there were two phases of how conversion became violent:

1. It began to be violent when they tried to convert people
2. It became violent when they tried to change people to their view of Christianity

This idea of being “chosen”, of exclusiveness, was still seen in Christianity. John Calvin’s doctrine of predestination is an example. It more or less states that God has preordained that some people will be saved and some are not. This definitely splits the population in two: the chosen (the elect) and the unchosen. And, we must remember, its ordained by God.

3-Islam

This seems to of created a strong exclusive quality. This is probably a result of all the conflicts that were going on in the middles east. This made them emphasize their belief over others causing them to be particularly exclusive. It seems to have several effects:

• One-sidedness – There is great emphasis on a specific way of worship and belief that was set by the Prophet Mohammed.
• Extremism – To enforce their beliefs and customs they seem to of ended up becoming very violent and controlling at times.

It seems that, in the middle east, these “chosenists” attitudes became a rallying cry for various causes because of the many conflicts going on there. It gave them their cause and their purpose. The result is that “chosenism” became something the political system, and people in power, exploited for their own ends.

THEMES

The development of this mentality seems to show some definite themes associated with “chosenism”:

• Exclusiveness – The belief that they are “special” and unique in relation to other people.
• Conversion – A belief that they are so “special”, and their beliefs are so true, that everyone else must change to their beliefs.
• One-sidedness – The belief that everything must be a “certain way” . . . that is, according to their beliefs.
• Extremism – A belief, under certain conditions, that they can use whatever means to suit their “special purpose”, even the use of force.

The effect of these is that it has often created a mentality that can be very in-your-face, intrusive, controlling, dictatorial, forceful, and even violent.

A WAR OF RIGHT SANCTIONED BY GOD

The result of all this is that there becomes a war of “we’re right and you’re not” and, most importantly, this is sanctioned by God. That makes it serious. This seriousness makes it becomes extreme and bad. In other words, it’s not religion that caused these problems but the fact that they believe that they were chosen by God making them right, and this sets them apart from everyone else.

Some of the effects of this include:

• A snobbery or arrogance
• They feel they have “free reign” and can do whatever they want

These are caused, of course, because they believe that they have God on their side.

THE QUESTION OF ORGANIZED RELIGION

The three main religions of this mentality are all “organized religions” which suggests that there is a close association between “chosenism” and organized religions. This may even suggest that the idea of being “chosen” may of been the cause for organizing a religion. In a sense, it suggests that there is a tendency to organize a religion of the “chosen” because they are in the midst of the “unchosen”.

EUROPEAN “CHOSENISM”

In Europe, most of the “chosenism” attitudes originate from Christianity. Through the centuries this attitude would change and morph into many different versions.

There seems to be stages in its development:

1. Christian conversion
2. Militaristic “chosenism”
3. Noble or upper class “chosenism”
4. Political “chosenism”
5. Post-religious “chosenism”
6. Social “chosenism”

1-Christian conversion

This is when Christianity was primarily trying to convert people. It is the first stage of the process but its effects are overshadowed be the following stages.

2-Militaristic “chosenism”

The Christian conversion seems to of blended, to some extent, with the Germanic militarism after the fall of the Roman Empire. This seemed to associated “chosenism” with authority and with militaristic attitudes (such as the use of force to get things done).

Its effects is that it tends to cause these qualities:

• They emphasize some form or conversion or changing of things or that people need to learn things.
• They often develop a “one-up” or “I’m better” type of attitude.
• They are willing to use any means, including violence, to achieve what they want (such as the conversion of people).

Overall, it creates an attitude of “you’ve got to change to my way”.

3-Noble or upper class “chosenism”

It appears that the “chosenist” attitude would become associated with the nobility and the upper social classes helping to create a “I’m a better class” attitude. This may be a result of the upper classes close association with Christianity particularly beginning with the Crusades.

4-Political “chosenism”

It seems, to me, that in Europe after the Crusades and especially the Reformation, religion and politics became blended together. As a result, these “chosenists” attitudes became associated with politics. The result is that now there becomes a war on “which political system is right” as well as “you better convert to our political system”. In some respects, politics replaces religion.

5-Post-religious “chosenism”

As time went on, the religious quality of being “chosen by God” would fade, particularly after science appeared. As a result, the quality of European “chosenism” would change. It would lose its religious associations and what remained is something like an attitude of “importance”, or that they are “better”, or an arrogance, or even a belief in superiority over other people. It also created an attitude of looking down on other people, treating other people like scum, and so on.

6-Social “chosenism”

During the late 1700’s and into the 1800’s social issues would become more and more dominant. As a result, many “chosenist” attitudes would become associated with many social issues. Many of these attitudes would reflect the original Christian origins, even though it may not be apparent. For example, there becomes themes having to save people and change people. That is to say, people have to be converted. People, and governments, have to change from their evil bad ways to a new way.

THE TREATMENT OF THE “UNCHOSEN”

This mentality has caused some of the worst problems in history and killed millions of people . . . and it still continues.

Because they consider themselves “chosen” they treat everyone else, the “unchosen”, in ways such as:

• They treat them as non-existent
• They have a poor view of them
• They think that they need to convert them to their belief, often if it requires force
• That they are insignificant and even expendable

The result is that the idea of the “chosen” has created a negative view of “other people”, that often causes a willingness to treat these people bad, horribly, and even kill them. In other words, the mentality of “chosenism” tends to create negative views of other people.

SOME QUALITIES THAT “CHOSENISM” CREATES

“Chosenism” has created a number of qualities in people which include:

Elitism

One effect of the attitude of “chosenism” is that it created, for the people who believe in it, something like an elitism or, perhaps, a snobbishness. They tend to think they are better, higher, or somehow set apart from other people. This seems to cause these things:

• A vanity, that they are “special”
• An arrogance, that they are “above” other people
• A tendency to treat others bad, that other people are insignificant in comparison to them

This can often appear as an attitude of superiority.

Entitlement

“Chosenism” also created an attitude of entitlement, that they deserve special privilege. They often think they can do what they want and get what they want.

Self-Righteousness

The attitude of being “chosen” tends to cause an automatic sense of self-righteousness, that “I am right and that’s it”.

A sense of security

“Chosenism” creates a sense of being chosen which makes one feel safe and secure

Having to change things

Another trait of “chosenism” is that they believe that they have to change things. Often, they have to change you or the world. Sometimes, this is under the guise of “education” or “progress” or “improvement”. Sometimes, this desire to change things can approach a mania.

The worship of the individual . . . and success

The Christian idea of predestination, that some people are ordained to be saved and others are not, put into question the question of the will. That is to say, if God ordains who is saved and who isn’t saved then how much influence is a persons will? It conflicts with the idea that we need to behave properly to be saved. One result of this dispute seems to be that there became an emphasis on a persons will which caused an emphasis on the person . . . . individualism. In so doing, much the the “chosenism” attitudes would be transferred to individualism. In this way, the act of a person, his achievements, would become a form of being “chosen”. But, of course, no one cares if one fails. As a result, to be more precise, the success of a person is a sign of being “chosen”. This eventually caused a worshipping of success.

Competitiveness

Being “chosen” often makes people compete with other people because they are “better”. In fact, it seems that “chosenism” inherently makes people competitive, the “chosen” are always having to fight against, or prove themselves better, than the “unchosen”.

Achievement

The idea of being “chosen” has made some people achieve more than they normally would. In other words, it has “inspired” people to “go beyond themselves”. I often wonder if European “chosenism” is what made Europe do all that it has done. In some sense, it created the modern world and has played a big role in all that we have . . . including the problems.

Contempt

Since “chosenism” is based in a belief that one is chosen it follows that it also causes a contempt of other people who are not “chosen” or that they perceive as not being “chosen”. This causes a tendency to have contempt of other people.

Paranoia

Because one views themselves as “chosen” this sets them apart from other people. An interesting effect of this is that it can create a paranoia, a belief that other people are after you.

Cults

The exclusiveness of “chosenism” tends to create groups of people that have their own distinct beliefs, often are secretive, and tend to be removed from others . . . cults. Often, they have specific initiatory practices and a learning process. This makes one “bonded” with the God.

The idea of “truth”

The “chosen” often feel that they know the “truth”. That’s why they are chosen. This can appear as if they are the only ones capable of knowing the truth or that they are privy to some “secret” that no one else knows.

Judgementalism

“Chosenism” caused a tendency where the chosen tend to be judgemental of the nonchosen. Often, they can be very critical and condemning.

Particularism

The “chosen” often become very particular and specific about things. That is to say, things must be “their way” or fit a specific way of doing things. This also makes them unwilling to accept other ways. It causes them to be somewhat pig-headed and selfish.

THE INFLUENCE OF NATURALLY APPEARING PHENOMENA

There are several naturally appearing phenomena in life that tends to foster the growth of “chosenism”. These include:

• Natural tribalism – The tendency to be “part of a group” is common in humanity. We all want to be part of a group, or “tribe”. This need is satisfied with “chosenism”. By feeling “chosen” there is a sense of being part of a group, a tribe, and feeling a belonging and security.
• Natural arrogance – A lot of “chosenism” no doubt rests on the fact that it caters to a natural arrogance. It gave an easy outlet for this tendency. This may be one of the main reasons why it has persisted so long and continuously. Its like an excuse to be arrogant, to feel important, to be “chosen” over others, and such.

ORIGINS IN ANCIENT EGYPT???

I have always speculated that Moses, as receiving the commandments and laws from God, was really a Jewish version of a Pharaoh, so to speak. That is to say, he was imitating the Egyptians and their political/power structure as a means to establish an organized control during the Exodus. This would make since as this was the political/power structure they were living under. If this were the case it would mean that “chosenism” has origins in Ancient Egypt and its culture and political/religious system. More specifically, it has origin in the mystique and power of the Pharaoh as God-King over Egypt. If one looks at it more closely it would probably be more accurate to say that Moses actually combined the Pharaoh and the Priests. In some sense, he was like a Hebrew Pharaoh and Priest.

Here are some things that may of helped to create the idea of being “chosen”:

• Moses, as lawgiver and receiving the commandments from God, was like Pharaoh/Priest who was perceived as giving “blessings” to the people. This same quality would also carry on down for the prophets and messiah. In this way, the idea of the “lawgiver”, “prophet”, and “messiah” may be a continuation of a Pharaoh/Priest.
• Pharaoh was a divine God-King, often associated with the sun god Ra, who gave life to the people just as the sun does. This is more than a political power. It is, in a sense, more than a religious power. It is more of a “life power” and this life is given to a specific people who are the subjects of Pharaoh. In this way, a specific people received “life” from a specific god, the sun, who is represented by Pharaoh. This idea may of helped the creation of the idea of a “chosen people”, of a specific people favored by God represented by a leader.
• The Nile brought life to Ancient Egypt and they knew of its importance. All around was desert but the Nile valley was lush and green. Its possible that this awareness of the power of the Nile valley gave a sense of being “special”, or “blessed”, for the Ancient Egyptians. This may of helped to create the idea of being “chosen”.
• Many Ancient Egyptians were concerned about death as well as what happens after death. This would be manifested in the belief of Osiris. As part of this belief a person would be judged according to their acts in life. This same point of view seems to be prevalent in Judaism with its preoccupation with sin. Moses, though, made sacrifice critical in alleviating sin and this became a major occupation of what happened at the Tabernacle before the Ark of the Covenant.
• Its possible that the Nile valley, with its green fertile lands, contrasted with the dead infertile desert that surrounded it created a sense that the lands of the Ancient Egyptians gave them a sense of being “chosen” or blessed in some way compared to other people.
• Hieroglyphs play a big role in Ancient Egypt, often having magical meaning. This same point of view may of helped in the sanctification of the five books of Moses (Torah). This may of passed on down to the New Testament and Koran.
• A lot of the magic Moses did was already being done by Egyptian Priests. My understanding is that there are accounts of Egyptian magicians who were parting waters, turning staffs into snakes, turning water to blood, etc. hundreds of years before Moses. If this were the case, it would suggest that the accounts in the Books of Moses is really a matter of who’s magic is more powerful!
• Even the design of the Tabernacle of the Ark of the Covenant resembles some of the Temples in Egypt. That can’t be coincidence. It suggests a deliberate imitation.

I have always felt that Moses did a lot of imitation of the Ancient Egyptians and that Judaism is a mixture of Ancient Egypt and Hebrew culture that was forged in a unique way during the Exodus. Though there is a basis in Ancient Egypt it was the Exodus that, in a sense, began the definition and practice of “chosenism”. The nature of the Exodus caused a number of things to happen:

• The need for unity
• The need for authority
• The need for a sense of security
• The need for special purpose

These needs, it seems, led to the necessity of the idea of a “chosen people”, that defines them as distinct, separate, removed, and with “Divine protection”. It held them together during the Exodus and beyond.

Because the laws of Moses were written down, and practiced, it persisted. If it wasn’t for this it would of been forgotten. Not only that, its being written down and practiced created a unity in the Jewish people that made them unique compared to other people. It made them constant, unchanging, and resilient to conflict. It helped maintain the “chosenist” attitude and keep it alive. This attitude would of remained with the Jews but, with Christianity, it began to spread to non-Jews. This would continue with Islam. As a result of these, the attitude and mentality of “chosenism” would spread, grow, and change, or so it seems to me.

(I’ve written several articles on related subjects: Thoughts on one of the effects of Judaism and Christianity: the endless reenactment of the Exodus – the “Exodus-based world view” and Thoughts on social control during the time of Moses and the Exodus as well as its effects on Judaism).

AFTERWORD

Looking at all this now it appears that “chosenism” has progressed and changed a lot through the centuries. It has done both good and bad. It has united people, made people achieve, and such, but it has also been a source of tension and killed people. Its hard to say, overall, if it has been good or bad. It all seems to depend on where you stand.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on the English and American “culture of contempt” – its origin in a culture clash???

Recently, I said something interesting.

I said that what I most dislike about English and American society is its contempt as well as how vindictive they often are, how they see the worst in things, and how they endlessly make things out worse than they are. I find it sort of disgusting, actually. There are times when I investigate the history of England and the US, and I get to the point that I can’t stand it anymore and have to take a break from it. Sometimes I won’t look at either country for months. Listening to the endless attacks against authority and the endless vindictiveness of these societies gets nauseating and sickening. This seems to be more pronounced with England than the US, I’ve found. I think that this is because it seems more obvious, and they make it sound more “official”. In the US it all seems to be blended with everything.

These traits seem to of began in England. Since the US comes from English society it follows that these traits carried on into American society. Many political and social views are based on this contempt. One could say that much of England’s political and social points of views, as well as America’s, are based on this mentality. Much of English and American life revolves around this mentality, in some way or another. This shows the power and dominance of this mentality. There is definitely something deep in it.

A CONTEMPT COMPLEX

Being brought up in the US I saw the attitude of contempt everywhere. Not everyone does it but it’s very prevalent. By “contempt” I mean that they dislike something so much that they have absolutely no respect for it, to the point they spit on it, despise it, and even hate it. But, as I looked at it closer, it became clear that there was much more to contempt than contempt. It was part of a greater story with many other qualities. It might be more accurate to call it a “contempt complex“. I would say that this complex has these different qualities:

• A feeling of being threatened in some way. This may appear like a paranoia. For example, people assume other people, society, the government, etc. are against them in some way.
• A sense of being a victim. This feeling of being threatened often turns into a feeling of being victimized or hurt in some way.
• Feelings of abandonment. There is a sense that feeling threatened or a victim are a result of being abandoned in some way.
• A disappointment. They feel that “authority”, meaning some form of social authority, has disappointed them making them feel the feelings in the qualities above.
• A contempt of authority. This disappointment often turns into anger and even a hatred of authority.
• They become vindictive. They may start to be revengeful or want to “get back” in some way.

What these seems to describe is something like a “let down”. To be more precise, these seem like a child’s reaction to being let down by their parents. In other words, this seems like a parent/child problem, something like a “family problem”. I sort of think that, deep down, it is. This is why its so deep. This is very significant as it shows that society is viewed as something like a “family” with deep connections between the people, particularly between the people and the “parent figure” or authority. In this way, society is not just a “group of people” or a political organization. I often speak of this deep-rooted family-like quality as the “tribe”. I have always suspected that this is related to the “tribal sense” seen in primitive tribes and is really a continuation of it. It seems, to me, that this “tribal sense” is well-developed in English culture more so than any other culture in Europe. As a result of this, it predisposed English culture to this problem. As to why the English would develop this so strongly I cannot say at this time but its created a deeper bond between the people and authority than in most countries. As a result, they are more prone to be “let down” by authority than in other countries, or so it seems to me. This same attitude, of course, has carried on down to the US.

It seems that this “let down” is at the base of the “contempt complex” and, accordingly, this causes difficult feelings toward the “parent image” – the image of authority. Everything seems to sprout from there. The difficult feelings that are directed toward the image of authority include:

• Disappointment
• Dislike
• Disgust
• Anger
• Hatred

These emotions together, in a sense, make up the sense of “contempt”. This isn’t just a single emotion for everyone. Each person tends to emphasize particular qualities giving contempt different forms and manifestations.

Because authority plays such a pivotal role in all its not surprising that authority gets special emphasis for the contempt. But as the culture develops the contempt begins to permeate into everything to the point that nothing is immune to the contempt. Because of this, the attitude of contempt tends to be found in things that seem to be unrelated to authority, such as a victim mentality.

The contempt appears in different ways:

• A contempt of things – its directed outward
• A self-contempt – its directed inward
• An overt contempt – its stated outright
• A hidden contempt – its hidden behind other things, such as a righteous cause

In these ways, one can see that the contempt has many different forms and manifestations.

Ways in which the “contempt complex” appears in the US include:

• The contempt of any image of authority
• The attacking of just about everything they don’t like
• The rebelling against just about everything they don’t like
• A horrible victim mentality, that they are being disadvantaged, oppressed, harmed, or something similar
• A ridiculous paranoia, a feeling that society or people are against them

In the US the contempt seems more generalized and can be directed toward anything. Often, this is anything they don’t like, that “rubs them the wrong way”, that they disagree with, etc.

When I look at English history I see the same thing, though a little different. It seems more political or social related. The “contempt complex” has qualities such as:

• The attack of the government or people in power
• The idea that they are oppressed, usually by authority or society
• The idea that we must be free or liberated, usually from authority or society
• A contempt of society, and social institutions, particularly when it involved some sort of “social class”
• A feeling that the government or people in power are trying to take advantage of them

These qualities can be described in a simple sentence: “someone (usually authority) is oppressing me and I need to fight to become free from this”. This point of view is almost obsessive for many English people. Its used for just about every problem to the point of nausea. It gives the English a narrow-minded and one-sided quality. I can often tell if something is English if it involves that storyline.

As I looked at the US and English versions through the years it is evident that they are variations of the same mentality and that they have the same origin.

A CULTURE OF CONTEMPT

Everywhere I turn I see contempt. Its infiltrated everything. Its become part of the culture. Because of this, I started to call speak of the “culture of contempt“. I would compare it to a disease or an infection. It seems to eat away at things when it becomes strong. This, I suppose, is because it attacks everything which has an undermining and destructive effect. When its not that strong it casts a shadow over things. In the end, its just a negative attitude that paints a gloomy vision of things regardless of how it is justified.

I never felt that this contempt was “normal” nor did it seem justified. It just always seemed to be there. I always felt that there was something more behind it, that it wasn’t just a “common emotion” or a manifestation of “people that are upset”. Something in my gut seemed to tell me more.

ORIGINS – A WAR OF CULTURES

This mentality has always mystified me. I think this subject is very involved and complicated and not as easy as it sounds (I have written about related subjects in earlier blogs as I have been looking at it for a long time).

I have this strange notion that it has origins in Anglo-Saxon times. Of course, its only speculation as we don’t know much about that time and will never know for sure. If this is the case then it means that it originates from over 1000 years ago! Because of this it has a long-standing history and has many different qualities that have been added to it through the centuries. This is such a long period of time, with so many variables, that its hard to delineate it exactly.

Two qualities seem important in Anglo-Saxon times:

1. The pagan “tribe”. This refers to “a people” which is really an extended family, as I described above. This is the source of the sense of the “family” which led to this being a “family problem”. The “tribe”, as I use it here, is not referring to a specific tribe of people. It is more referring to a “tribal sense”, of a unity between a specific group of people as well as the bond between those people and authority. Its like a social bond. In this “tribe” is security and safety. It is pagan and reflects pagan mentality.
2. The Christian conversion. When Christianity came it contradicted the pagan “tribe”, condemned it, and sought to undermine it. It did this while professing to “save” the people with a “new way” of living. In this way, Christianity was as if usurping the pagan “tribe”.

It seems, to me, the Christian conversion did these things:

• It disrupted the integrity and security of the “tribe”
• It tried to instill ideas and ways from another culture
• It sought to replace it with a new “Christian tribe”
• It was only partially successful

In other words, the Christian conversion “implanted” a foreign culture that was at odds with the existing culture. It never completely usurped the older culture but it was partially successful. As a result, it left two cultures side-by-side that are at odds with each other. The “culture of contempt” seems to of originated from this situation. If this is true it would mean that the “culture of contempt” may have origin with the conflict of a pagan “tribalism” and the Christian conversion. In this way, there was a “war of cultures” that, in a way, is still going on.

A SPLITTING

Even though Christianity converted some people it actually failed in the long run. It failed in these ways:

• It failed in “saving” the people
• It failed in giving hope . . . it gave a hope that only believers felt
• It failed in giving a sense of security . . . it gave a sense of security that only believers felt
• It failed in creating a stable “Christian tribe”

The result is that it caused something like a split in the society:

• Those who don’t believe Christianity and favored the “tribe”
• Those who believe in Christianity and don’t favor the “tribe”

This split still exists and they still are at odds with each other. In the US the best example would be the conflict between conservatives (the “tribe”) and liberals (Christianity). What this shows is that the Christian conversion divided the society and put people at odds with each other which continues to this day.

CONFUSION

The definite differences between the “tribe” and Christianity was complicated by the fact that they became confused. This appears to be the result of the King supporting Christianity. The King is a representative of the “tribe” so when he supported Christianity there became a confusion. Traits of the “tribe” became “Christianized” and traits of Christianity became “tribalized”. In a way, each side adopted traits of the other. Feudalism and the Crusades, it seems, appeared to of sealed this confusion merging the “tribe” with Christianity, at least to some extent. Despite this, they still weren’t compatible and conflicts between the two continued. The continuing conflict between Church and State probably reflect this.

Its possible that this confusion prevented a more defined conflict between the “tribe” and Christianity from taking place. It created a gray area which as if reconciled the two, at least at times. In this way, it split the society in these ways:

1. Those who predominately follow the ways of the “tribe”
2. Those who predominately follow the ways of Christianity
3. Those who follow the ways of both
4. Those who became disillusioned by it all and lost belief

LATER DEVELOPMENT

The original conflict between the pagan “tribe” and the Christian conversion seems to of laid the groundwork and foundation for the cultures development as it later developed. All the following contributions to this culture, that happened as time went on, seems a variation of this conflict where it was repeated again and again but in different ways: the Norman Conquest, the Protestant Reformation, The English Civil War, the Glorious Revolution, etc. A common trait in these is that one segment of the society is trying to “force a change” on the other segment. In this way, it’s like a repeat of the Christian conversion. This perpetual repetition may of helped instill it deeper in the culture.

This “perpetual repetition” seems to have stages. They tend to blend together but have periods of dominance. These are:

1. The religious stage – dominant from Anglo-Saxon times to 1700’s
2. The social status stage – dominant from medieval ages to today
3. The political stage – dominant from 1500’s to today
4. The economic stage – dominant from 1800’s to today
5. The social stage (an emphasis on “social issues”) – dominant from 1800’s to today

Each stage created unique characteristics and qualities to the contempt.

THE OVERALL EFFECT

The result of all this is:

• The security isn’t there . . . feeling vulnerable
• What professes to “save” us doesn’t save us . . . disappointment
• We can’t tell what the authority is to give us security or “save” us . . . contempt

In other words, people are expecting a security and it isn’t there (the “tribe” lets them down). They were also told they would be saved but wasn’t (Christianity let them down). This causes all sorts of bad feelings leading to contempt.

THEMES CREATED

This conflict eventually created themes such as:

• A distrust of authority – this created new views of government without authority such as democracy
• The idea that we must protect ourselves from authority – this created ideas such as freedom, independence, and such
• A strong patriotism – they put great emphasis and importance on their culture to regain the security of the “tribe” . . . in England there is strong feelings for the monarchy

These are strong traits in English and American societies.

A CULTURE CLASH

What all this really refers to is what can be described as a “culture clash” and it was a big one too. It has lasted over 1000 years! In some respects, England, and the US, is fighting with two incompatible cultures:

1. Its own original culture that people identify with and which has no Christian traits
2. An imported Christian culture that conflicts with its own culture

The problem is that many people believe in the imported Christian culture even though it is conflicting with its own culture. This creates a dilemma as they are incompatible. Its like saying “I believe in the death penalty but I don’t want to hurt anyone”. Its like these two culture have fused together even though they are incompatible. Sometimes they get along. Sometimes they don’t. In a sense, its like sibling rivalry, a perpetual never-ending sibling rivalry that has been going on for over 1000 years.

===

Articles on related subjects:

Thoughts on the splitting of society by the Christian conversion – the Conversion Cult and its effects

Thoughts on how people are divided in English and American society – the struggle to remain a “people” as well as remarks about tribalism and the need for security

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on writing 1100 articles

This is my 1100th article and the 14th year of this blog. Every so often I like to reflect on thinking and writing. Here are some thoughts that come to me:

• As I look back on what I had written and some of them make me chuckle. I had some weird ideas and I still come up with weird ones. Some ideas are silly, nonsensical, far-fetched, and that. Some, though, are good and I still like them. I take pride in some of the ideas and articles I wrote.
• Many ideas I no longer believe or they seem silly to me now.
• I often write in weird ways that, sometimes, is sort of funny as I look back on it now. I don’t know how other people see it though.
• Many ideas are naive and simplistic, I think.
• Many ideas get overly complicated, I think.
• I think about some subjects for so long that I often wonder if I have written multiple articles saying the same thing. I probably have.
• Oddly, after writing all this I seem more dumber than I used to be.
• Even though I call these “articles” I tend to look at them more as my “personal notes”.
• Apparently, I must not write well, or write on interesting enough subjects, or am not convincing enough as not a lot of people read these articles (maybe what I write is all nonsense?). None have become popular, and I don’t get a lot of comments. I even told someone recently, “my blog is not that popular.” This is one reason why I call them my “personal notes” as I understand them, but it doesn’t seem that anyone else does.
• I often remark how what I consider the best articles are seldom read. I even have a joke. I say, “Whenever I write an article and say ‘that’s good’ I take it as a bad omen. It means that no one will ever read it.” It’s always saddened me that the best articles, that say the most, are never looked at. The articles that are looked at are usually what I would consider as minor articles, simplistic, and often trivial.
• I am continually questioning the value of ideas and writing. Sometimes, it all seems a waste of time. I often wonder why I continue to write in this blog. I still think its because I like to write more than anything else.

But, overall, I think that the main benefit of trying to discover how things appear to me, which is the motive of this blog, is that it gave me a “handle” on things. This helped me in ways such as:

• Its made me so I don’t get swept up in the hysteria and mania of things
• Its made me not blindly follow things
• Its made me not be over-hasty in judgements and interpretations of things
• Its made me so I don’t automatically assume something is correct . . . or wrong
• Its made me question myself and others
• Its made me realize that I am no genius with all the answers, and neither is anyone else
• Its made me feel more of a “person”

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on my advice to young white American males, with remarks on how authority is treated in America, the avoidance of being in authority, and such

I found this in my unpublished files.  I started it in 2020.  I think its interesting enough to record.  I still believe that there is truth in it.

===

Recently, I stated an old thought I’ve had for many years.  Its something I’ve always wanted to say to young white American males.  Its always been hard for me to say this but the reality speaks for itself.  This is what I wanted to say:

“My advice to young white American males is to not be in a position of authority and, if you want to, you really need to think about it”

To be more precise, you want to avoid being in a position that has great power and influence over people.  Examples includes positions of power in government, companies, organizations, and such.

This advice comes from my experience of being in the US and what I have seen.  When I was brought up, we were told that to be leaders, and in authority, was something good and something to seek.  It was highly esteemed and made out as some great ideal.  It was a sign of the “greatness of America” particularly when a common man, from a humble background, can achieve a position of leadership and authority.  My observation, though, shows otherwise.  To be in authority, it seems to me, is to ask for problems.

HOW AUTHORITY IS TREATED IN AMERICA

Being in authority in America is not that appealing.  To be frank, I see no value in being an authority in America.  This is because of things such as:

• It means that you will be blamed for any problem whether you’re involved or not
• It means that you will be a scapegoat
• You will be made out as a villain
• You will get drawn in to a shooting match between people or groups
• There is no respect
• Its thankless
• You don’t gain anything or get anything for it
• There’s no dignity in it

If I were to put it in the simplest way I would say it this way:  “you have to take all this crap and get nothing for it”.

Practically every image of authority has been attacked and undermined in the US.  Even the image of the “father” has been attacked and undermined.  The father is practically become a “nothing” in this society as is most traditional images of authority.

If you do seek authority then you must be aware that America does not treat authority well.  You must be aware of the consequences and be willing to deal with it.  It seems, to me, that this will bring a whole new dimension to it and a whole new struggle.  You must be willing to deal with that.  Here is an article on a similar subject:  Thoughts on qualities seen when one is in a position of authority, with remarks on problems and the dilemma of solutions and political authority

THE VILLAINIZING OF THE WHITE MALE

The white American male has been particularly singled out for blame, accusation, and as a person to villainize.  This is because he is the image of “authority” because he created this country and, as such, is a dominant figure.  As a result, the white male is the “first” image of authority, so to speak.  He did things such as these:

• He built this country
• He created its ideals
• He created its laws
• He invented much of what it has
• He created its economy
• He created its social infrastructure
• He fought and died for it

With all this you would think the white male would get some respect.  But that’s not what I have seen.  My whole life is watching the white male turned into a villain.  I see things such as:

• The white males is blamed for a lot of problems.  In fact, the white male is often blamed for the worlds problems!
• People act like the white male is plotting against them and are often a threat to them.  I sometimes jokingly call this the “great white male threat” as the white male is apparently these “bad guys” that’s threatening everyone.
• They act as if the white male is against anyone that is not white male.
• They act as if we have all this “privilege” which we don’t have.
• They act as if the country would be better if white males weren’t in charge, that things would be better if they were “in charge”, as if they have the answers to the country’s problems.
• The white male can’t even have his own place anymore.
• They often act as if the white male is supposed to give them everything they want and, if they don’t, then its because white males are bad people (I always thought this strange).
• There’s no gratitude.
• There’s no respect.

See this article for a similar subject matter:  Thoughts on the unique association between the White Male and the modern world, as well as some of its effects.

My feelings is to let other people (such as females or minorities) be in authority and then they can get all the crap and find out what its like.  They will find its not as easy as they think. Not only that, I think their image needs to be tarnished and corrupted.  They need to be made out as the villains and “bad guys”.  They will find things such as:

• They will get all the blame for everything and become the “bad guys”.
• They will find that they will be attacked for every little thing they do.
• They will have their lives examined and dissected apart.
• The will see how every fault, however small, is made out as some horrible thing.
• They will find that whatever they do, no matter how “good” it seems, adversely affects someone.
• They will find that things happen that they don’t expect.
• They will find that they do not have the answers to the countries problems and that things are more complex than they realized.
• They will find that having females or minorities in power is NOT improving things nor are they making better leaders . . . they don’t have any magic wand to solve everything and make things better.

These appear to be happening.

THE ATTACK OF AUTHORITY

This attack of authority is not surprising.  Isn’t the founding of the US based in the attack of authority?  Isn’t the idea of democracy based in not having an authority?  Isn’t it based in the fear of the government (authority)?  Isn’t it based in the idea that we must protect ourselves from the government (authority)?  This endless persistent attack of authority has been part of the “American way” from the very beginning.  It runs rampant here.  Its like anything that is viewed as authority ends up being attacked as if it some sort of a righteous cause.  I often wonder if this mentality going to destroy this country one day.  What society can possibly continue to exist when authority is perpetually attacked?

SEEK TO BE “CASUAL”

I often say that another advice I would give to white males would be to do what I call being “casual”. This basically means to do things such as:

• Do not try to save the world
• Do not try to influence people
• Do not be in a position of power over people
• Put emphasis on doing things for yourself and what is important to you

In other words, don’t try to be this great person who is trying to achieve great things and influence people . . . not unless you have some great desire to do it.

Being “casual” is what most white males end up doing anyways.  I’ve heard of some cases where people tried to be in authority but, after seeing all the problems, just fell back to being “casual”.  I think this is commoner than you’d think.

THE AVOIDANCE OF BEING IN AUTHORITY . . . ITS BECOME A NATURAL TENDENCY

Since the white male is the “first” image of authority it follows that the white male is the first one who confronts the problems of authority and reacts to it, and this appears to of happened.  The result:  an avoidance of being in authority!

I tend to feel that it is a natural tendency, nowadays, for white males to not seek to be in authority.  There is a reluctance to be in charge, to be leaders, and even to achieve anything.  This is one reason, I believe, why white males don’t do anything anymore.  This happens automatically, without thought.  In some ways, my advice is not something they need to be told.  It is a self-evident fact that happens and they naturally do it.  But I don’t think many white males know it or are aware of why they do what they do. This tendency to avoid authority is part of what I often call this the “male exodus”.  This primarily consists of a “turning away” from society and a desire to not be actively involved with it (I’ve written a number of articles on it such as More thoughts on “the male exodus” – the importance of a world that is worth the effort or ‘world worth’ and  More thoughts on the Male Exodus – on how it reflects a social problem, its association with democracy, the importance of authority, disillusionment, the schizoid phenomena, and other things).

I have often said that the white males avoidance of authority, and the “males exodus”, is reflective of a failure of this society and its belief.  As I said above, since the white male is the “first” image of authority he is the first to truly confront the effects of what this society actually does.  To put it another way, to have the people who are the “first” image of authority avoid being in authority and “turn away” from society is not a good sign.  I’ve often said that it is a sign of a problem that may become more evident in the future.  In its simplest way, it may be stated in this way:  the “American idea” isn’t as great as it seems.

THE LOSS OF IMPORTANT TRAITS OF AUTHORITY

It seems, to me, that America’s political ideas, such as democracy, which tend to undermine authority turned being in authority into a dull, boring, mundane, and empty thing.  In some sense, it “gutted” authority or, perhaps, “castrated” it.  They have turned authority into something intellectual, mechanical, dead, and inhuman.  It did this primarily by doing things such as:

• Basing authority on an “idea”
• The forcing of things to fit that idea
• Destroying the “image” of authority
• The attack and contempt of authority

Its like they tried to turn authority into a science, which it isn’t.  The fact is that when we take the human out of authority it deteriorates and that is exactly what happened.  Authority is human authority and, as a result, it is rooted in humanity and human qualities.  In this way, the loss of the appeal of authority is that it isn’t human anymore.

One thing that seems apparent is that authority is rooted in a human culture, a religious-like and tribal quality in human nature.  It seems to reflect traits such as:

• Culture – The social beliefs, traditions, attitudes, etc. that makeup the society.  From this authority sprouts.  In many ways, true authority is rooted in the culture.  It can’t just be created and it can be just an idea.
• Mystique – It took the mystique out of authority.  It’s now “just a thing one does” like combing one’s hair.  Even when I was a kid authority, leadership, and such had this magical quality that is no longer there.  The endless attack of authority makes it even worse.  This shows that being in authority is associated with this mystique.  
• The “beyond human” – Being in authority seems to have this quality of being beyond a human person, almost other-worldly.  This shows that the being in authority is associated with going beyond the human world and reality.  
• Social connection– It destroyed the social aspect of authority.  This is because there is a close association between authority and society.  That is to say, authority needs society to be relevant.  Being in authority firmly establishes a person in a society, making one meaningful in that society.  In fact, it establishes a person deeply in a society with a deeper meaning than most people.  In this way, being in authority is reflective of a deep connection with a social system, reflective of a tribal-like mentality.  
• Dignity– It destroyed the dignity of authority.  With the loss of the traits described above there became a loss of dignity with authority.  In a way, being in authority has become empty.  In this way, being in authority is associated with dignity.  

America’s ideals have undermined these.

Because of this undermining there must be something else that motivate peoples to positions of authority . . .

WANTING TO BE IN AUTHORITY NOWADAYS

It seems, to me, that the main reasons why people want to be in authority nowadays are:

• Personal gain.  I speak, especially, of making money such as in owning a company or some occupation that pays a lot.  If it wasn’t for money they wouldn’t be doing it.
• Idealism.  They have ideas of “saving the world”, changing society, and stuff like that.  These are often utopian-like, I’ve found, and often become fanatical and unrealistic.

It seems, to me, that there is no longer a desire to be authority for reasons such as a desire to be leaders, cultural ideals, tradition, beliefs, and such which were common many years ago.

THE DILEMMA OF AUTHORITY

The reasons given above are not too inspiring about people in authority.  Personal gain and idealism doesn’t create convincing authority, usually.  Personal gain ends up becoming greed.  Idealism ends up becoming fanaticism.  In some ways, these  has caused a “cheapening” of authority and people in authority.  To me, this seems to create a dilemma in authority nowadays, that the people in authority aren’t really resting on solid ground.  This, I suppose, is the inevitable result of the idea of democracy and America’s revolution and rebelling attitude (where the ideals is to have no one in authority except for this abstract idea of “the people”).  These create a distrust, a contempt, and a tendency to attack authority.  What type of authority do you think that this is going to create?  Do you think its going to be an authority that is stable?  Do you think its going be an authority that is worth looking up to?  I guess its no surprise that authority is so degraded with conditions like this.

In some respects, my advice above is the inevitable result of America’s beliefs and attitudes.  It reveals, in many ways, the dilemma of authority in a society that has made a virtue out of attacking authority.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on “conceptual art”

I found this in my unpublished files.  I started it in 2018.

===

Many of the articles in this blog are a form of what I call “conceptual art“.   To me, this is an art form which uses concepts or, rather, ideas, to create a painting or picture of the world.  I often call them “conceptual paintings” as, like paintings, they are a picture of something.  Instead of using pencils or paint, though, it uses words to paint a picture of ideas, principles, and explanations.  In this way, I tend to view these as an art form.  I see nothing different between me thinking about things and a painter painting a picture.  In fact, I see them more as art than a logic, intellectual act, or a science though that may be how they appear.  I have used other expressions to describe “conceptual art” such as “intuitional art” and “impressionistic thought”. What they all refer to is this idea of “painting” a “sketch” of a condition of life in my mind with concepts.  In other words, the concept created is a “painting” or “sketch”.  It is not based in logical thought, analyzing, etc. but, rather, creativity . . . that is, by an inspiration . . . intended to paint a picture of something I feel.

CONCEPTUAL ART

“Conceptual art” paints a picture of things such as these:

• A perception of the world
• An awareness
• An intuition
• A feeling

The myth of “ultimate knowledge”

Intellectualism and science has made it so that ideas, thoughts, concepts, etc. must be “true” and “correct” all the time as well as unshakeable.  I sometimes speak of this as “ultimate knowledge” . . . everything must be true from an overall point of view creating an “ultimate image”.  What this means is that, in conceptual art, I am not trying to “explain everything”, come up with some new truths, solve the riddle of life, and so on.  I am not seeking anything ultimate, that is intended to explain everything.  As we’ll see below, conceptual art is very personal, based on ones personal experience and life.

The harmony orientation

There is something which I call “harmony orientation”.  This refers to this idea that concepts become “true” only when they are in a harmony with ones self and ones reality.  In some sense, this condition is what a person actually paints.

Its a harmony between things like:

• Ones character
• Ones experience
• Ones conditions
• Ones way of life and social situation
• Ones age
• Ones sex
• Ones thought process and beliefs

This harmony creates something like a “truth” in the painting.  In other words, “truth” is found in the interweaving of different qualities found in life and not in the “truth” of the idea by itself, as is preached by intellectualism and science.  This means that “truth” varies from person to person, from place to place, from age to age, and a single experience can change everything.  A person, then, is in a continual seeking of harmony of all these elements to create a “concept” that is unifying.  In other words, the concept does not “answer” anything . . . instead, it “unifies” and makes a whole.  But, since this is always changing, the conceptual image is always changing.  Therefore, “conceptual art” is in a perpetual state of change, always seeking harmony between the variable qualities in life.  

A continual seeking . . .

In my opinion, the continual seeking of harmony is one of the great joys of “conceptual art”.  Not only does it bring a satisfaction in finding a harmony but a humility because ones conceptions keep getting smashed down.

A describing

A common expression of mine is “that is how it appears to me at this time”.  This means that a concept has qualities such as:

• It is not “ultimate knowledge” nor professes to be the truth
• It is not “final” but continually changing
• It entails an awareness of ones self and life situation
• It is personal and a finding what matters to ones self
• It is reflective of the here-and-now

In effect, “conceptual art” is nothing but a description of conditions from ones perspective at the moment.

The importance of honesty

This description requires one to be brutally honest.  In many ways, trying to be honest with ones self may be one of the biggest hindrances and difficulties of “conceptual art”.  Perhaps one could even say that honesty is the great battle of “conceptual art”.

Many people are not all that honest with themselves.  This seems to be because of things such as:

• An inability.  Some people lack the right thought processes, means of expression, etc.
• A reluctance.  There is a fear and apprehension.
• A reliance on pre-existing and accepted points of view.  This hides their lack of honesty.
• An absence of inner inquiry.  They simply have not looked.
• A lack of courage.  To be brutally honest with ones self takes far more courage than one may at first think.
• An inability to accept certain facts. A significant aspect of honesty entails a coming to terms with certain facts about ones self, human nature, and life which can be difficult to accept.  Personally, I think many people are reluctant to accept certain facts of life and often avoid the matter as a result.

WORDS AND PASSION

To me, any concept has several qualities:

1. Words/ideas – these create the concept
2. Passion – the motive of the words/ideas

Comparing it to a painter I’d say that words/ideas are the paint.  But, as with painting, what motivates it is what it expresses or means, the passion behind it.  In this way, the painting is a reflection of the passion not the paint.  To emphasize only the words and ideas is like a painter emphasizing only the paint.  Most certainly they are important, but they are only the medium of the passion.

There is a tendency where we emphasize words and ideas too much, forgetting what motivates them.  I call this the “word-centered orientation”.  What we want to seek, though, is what I call the “passion-centered orientation”.  This means that we put the passion before the words.  That is to say, we need to let the passions motivate the words.   This requires a particular stance toward words and passion.  This stance has created a number of expressions of mine:

• “Seek what is before the words”  – that is, what motivates the words and concepts
• “Ideas are only the footprints of where you’ve been” 

In other words, in the “passion-centered orientation” one looks for the passion and one treats the words almost like a “byproduct” or “after effect” of this process.  To be frank, most of what I write in this blog is often quickly forgotten . . . once its said it becomes nothing but a dead “footprint” of where I have been.  I’m not chasing footprints but the passion that motivates it.  In this way, “conceptual art” is really the pursuing of passion, not an idea.

For this to happen, though, it requires a person be able to “sense” this passion.  I’d describe it as an intuitive sense, as it is wordless.  Many people cannot do this, I’ve found, or have a hard time.  I think that this intuitive sense is critical in “conceptual art”.

QUALITIES IN THE CREATION OF  “CONCEPTUAL ART”

To be able to do “conceptual art” seems to entail things such as these:

• Intuition – the ability to sense passion
• Insight – the ability to see meaning in the passion
• Artistic ability – the ability to put things together in a creative fashion
• The ability to express – being able to “get passion out”
• The ability to create concepts -This is the “painting” or “sketch”

Conceptual art is really an impression.  That is to say, it is the effect of the impression of passion on a person.  In many ways, its an inspiration.  Sometimes, it seems to come out of nowhere.

FORMS OF “CONCEPTUAL ART”

It seems, to me, that there are several forms of “conceptual art”:

1. Specific concepts.  These are concepts that involve a specific issue or theme.
2. Personal concepts.  These are concepts that involve ones self.
3. Life concepts.  These are concepts that entail an overall view of life.

In many ways, the purpose of “conceptual art” is to develop a more generalized life concept.  Sometimes, this can take on religious qualities, I’ve found.

Life concepts seem to develop from things such as these:

• Many specific and personal concepts that are as if “added up”
• Long standing experience and reflection
• A greater “life view” that one develops

A SPECTRUM OF “CONCEPTUAL ART”

Many things the have developed through the years are forms of “conceptual art”.  There has developed something like a spectrum to “conceptual art” that goes from very-artistic to not-so-artistic.  It goes something like this:

• Song – words and ideas combined with music
• Poetry – words and ideas in harmony
• Mythology – words and ideas used in symbology
• Stories – words and ideas used to tell something
• Explanations/concepts – words and ideas to describe something

The extremes has qualities such as:

• Harmony and overt expression is dominant . . . song.  There is more reliance on being “affected” by a harmony than any meaning.
• There is no harmony or overt expression . . . explanation/concept.  The association of ideas and concepts replace harmony and overt expression.  There is more reliance on word and idea meaning. 

“Conceptual art” reflects the explanation/concepts phase but its not uncommon that it can take on other qualities, such as when ideas becomes something like a song with a harmony.  In fact, when ideas flow together and seem to harmonize well I often speak of this as the “song”.  In fact, I’d say that “conceptual art” is when explanations/concepts dominate but they have subtle references to the other qualities in varying degrees.  In this way, it reflects the whole spectrum but only has an emphasis on explanations and concepts.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen

Thoughts on my trip to Washington D.C. and how I disagreed with many American beliefs that were portrayed there

I found this in my unpublished files.  I wrote most of this after going to Washington D.C. which was about 2012, I think.  In a way, its like a little critique of America that I did back then which is quite interesting.  Overall, I think there is some truth in it.  I know that I have repeated some of it in some previous articles.

===

Recently, I went to Washington D.C. for a trip.  While there I noticed they preached a certain perspective that I disagreed with.  Though I have heard them before, it basically was a more ‘extreme’ version of what I have already heard, which quite stunned me.  It is, after all, the “American political dogma” and, being the political center, it took it seriously, perhaps too seriously.  In general, I’d say one of the reasons why I disagreed with many American beliefs isn’t because the beliefs are ‘bad’ or ‘wrong’ but that they are taken too far or way too seriously.  Many of these beliefs were treated in ways such as:

• These political ideas were treated as if they were a religion.  Even at the Lincoln Memorial it said that it was a “temple”.  America’s political beliefs is not a religion.  God didn’t write the Declaration of Independence or the Bill of Rights.
• They talked as if these political ideas were what life revolved around as if they were the answer to life’s questions and problems.  It was as if we accepted these political beliefs, and let it control our lives, we would go into some utopian world.

We must remember that Americas political beliefs are just political theory and, not only that, it is only one theory among many and, more importantly, no political theory has been totally successful.

Here are some issues that are taken too far, in my opinion:

• Democracy.  Frankly, I have never really believed in democracy or “people rule”.  To me, that is impossible and impractical.  It sounds good but, in the real world, it doesn’t work.  Not only that, the historical record shows that democracies don’t work.  When has people ruling a country ever worked?  In addition, this government isn’t a democracy anyways.  I have said, many times, that we should quit using that word for these reasons.  I always thought it comical how the U.S. seems to take pride in calling itself a government style that doesn’t work.
• Voting.  I have never believed that voting gave me that much power.  I never believed it made me a contributor to politics.  I think it is overrated and is generally inaccurate anyways.  I’m not saying that its bad but I don’t think its the great thing people make it out as.
• The myth of ‘people power’.  America preaches all this stuff about how the “people” have all this power.  Personally, I don’t see that much evidence of it.  Not only that, it seems unrealistic to think that . . . how can people have such power?  I have always been insulted when they spoke like I had “power” when I know very well that I don’t and can’t.
• Paranoia.  America is based on the idea that we must protect ourselves from the government.  It’s whole government is based in that.  As such, it is rooted in a paranoia and preaches a general paranoid-outlook on life.  It’s really no wonder why Americans see threats in everything, conspiracy theories, and things like that.  This shows that the general American political system teaches people to be paranoid.  It causes a lot of false accusations and despair in people.
• Blind rebellion.  The U.S. is rooted in rebellion.  As a result, there is a glorification of rebellion here.  It’s done, frankly, to the point of nausea.  I sometimes think America is going to “rebel itself to death”.
• Freedom.  The endless concern for freedom has always made me chuckle.  I understand that freedom can be an important thing, but its not what life revolves around, nor is it what government revolves around either.   Many Americans talk as if this is the sole concern in life.
• Equality.  This has often been taken to ridiculous proportions.  I do feel that no one is above the law . . . that is, equal before the law . . . but to treat everyone as if they are exactly the same is absurd.

Many of these things mean well but they are taken too seriously and too far.  To me, the effects of this is that it creates a very limited perspective that is seen in American mentality.  Basically, America’s worship of its “political dogma” limits its perceptions of things.  Everything must fit its political thinking.  The result of this is that it creates a  mentality that is often ‘out of touch’ with things.

Frankly, I view America’s political theory as A point of view . . . it is not THE point of view.  No political theory has that distinction.  I tend to view political theory more as a “guideline” than something sealed in stone, nor is it something to be worshipped.

---

Copyright by Mike Michelsen