Tipping Sacred Cows

Prevolution: Evolution in Advance

  I'm reading P.M.H. Atwater's book, The Idiot's Guide to Near-Death Experiences. Atwater, one of the original near-death researchers, was discussing some of the characteristics of those who have had near-death-experiences, or NDE's.

  Interestingly, besides the psychological and emotional changes one might expect, there are physical changes as well. Atwater describes the NDE as "one of nature's most accelerated growth events, a powerful and complex dynamic that can not only foster psychological changes, but cause physiological mutations the equal of species evolution." (italics mine - SpiritPainter)

That last phrase almost jolted me out of my chair.

  Let me quote Atwater's lists of the major psychological and physiological changes that the majority, though not all, NDE experiencers tend to display:

  Psychological:

  "Loss of the fear of death, more spiritual, less religious, abstract easily, philosophical, can go through bouts of depression, disregard for time, more generous and charitable, form expansive concepts of love while at the same time challenged to initiate and maintain satisfying relationships, 'inner child' issues exaggerated, less competitive, convinced of a life purpose, rejection of previous limitations and norms, heightened sensations of taste-touch-texture-smell, increased psychic ability and future memory episodes, charismatic, childlike sense of wonder and joy, less stressed, more detached and objective (dissociation), 'merge' easily (absorption), hunger for knowledge and learning."

  Physiological:

  "Changes in thought-processing (switch from sequential/selective thinking to clustered thinking and an acceptance of ambiguity), insatiable curiosity, heightened intelligence, more creative and inventive, unusual sensitivity to light and sound, substantially more or less energy (even energy surges, often more sexual), reversal of body clock, lower blood pressure, accelerated metabolic and substance absorption rates (decreased tolerance of pharmaceuticals and chemically treated products), electrical sensitivity, synesthesia (multiple sensing), increased allergies or sensitivities, a preference for less meat and more vegetables and grains, physically younger looking (before and after photos can differ)."

  And here are a few especially interesting items:

  Interference with electric and electronic equipment leading to malfunctions, breakage, and other unusual reactions. People report "microphones that 'fought' them, recorders that began to 'smoke,' computers that 'crashed,' television channels that 'flipped,' electronic memory systems that 'wiped out,' or street lights that 'popped' as they walked by." Often they "could not wear watches anymore without constantly replacing them."

  A high incidence of psychic phenomona, including healing gifts.

  An increased sensitivity to meteorological changes and phenomena.

  Changing from an angry, uptight person, to someone who loves people utterly without judgment.

  Now let's start with this assumtion: suppose most of these changes are actually, in fact, the beginnings of species evolution. And suppose that evolution may not always occur in response to changes in the environment, but may in fact begin in preparation for changes in the environment?

  In other words, prevolution.

  With that in mind, look over that list again. How many of the changes on that list are absolutely, totally, absurdly, incompatible with a high-tech electronic society? How many of those changes look like they're tailor-made for a low-tech (read: aboriginal) society? How many of those traits would be valuable in the event of a vastly reduced population, surviving with no - zero - technology as we have become accustomed to it, in a fouled environment?

  And keeping in mind that these might be prevolutionary changes, look at that list harder, and think. What circumstances would make each trait valuable? What would have to happen between now and whatever then we might be looking forward to, in the environment, in civilization and in society, in order for each of those traits to become valuable? How might we have gotten from here to there, and how would having this trait not only help in survival, but also help prevent that occurrence from happening again? Don't be too quick to dismiss anything.

  Think.

  Think hard.

  We're on the threshold.

The Politics of Fear

  Somewhere in the neighborhood of last week, the negative political advertising began out our way.

  That's kind of what I used to do when I was a political cartoonist. Always tearing down, rarely building up.

  And people will talk about how awful negative campaign advertising is, and how it's so degrading, and how they wish all that mudslinging would just stop, but it doesn't, and it won't likely do so any time soon.

  Why? Two words:

  It works.

  At least in the short run. And politics seems to be pretty much about the short run. So if nobody can stand the darn stuff, why does it work?

  Religious organizations figured that one out a long time ago: fear. Fear works really well in the short run. And if you can keep people fearful, it works pretty well in the long run, too. To a point.

  You see, it taps into one of our primal instincts: survival. After all, we need to know if there's a hungry beast prowling the nearby woods for our family, or if the tyrant over the next hill is going to attack. So fear serves a necessary purpose. Plus, all that adrenaline pumping through our system can be addictive, so we're always looking for the next thing to fear. It's a powerful, cheap drug.

  Don't believe me? Ask a news editor. Bad news equals fear, equals ratings, equals sales. Equals cash. News editors know how to drive their market, just like any pusher.

  I said it works to a point. The news media have it easiest. They have a constantly changing array of targets, so they don't usually come off as the bad guys, unless they stay on someone after the public's blood frenzy has passed. So they can be the good guys, the guards on the tower, the equal opportunity Paul Reveres.

  But the politicians and the religious bunch don't have it so easy. There's always just their side, then there's the other guys. So attacks might be viewed as self-serving. And mean. And everybody knows, mean people suck.

  The bottom line is a wonderfully objective measure of truth. The reason you don't see very many attack ads for products, is that it's no way to win brand loyalty. It might get you somewhere in the short run, but you pay a price and you'd better get off it fast. Almost all advertising is spent on telling you how good a company's product is, not how horrible the other guy's product is.

  Of course, it's easy to tear down. It's much harder to offer a more excellent choice. If you demonize the other folks, you just have to be a little less of a devil to be the best choice available.

  But you pay in brand loyalty, remember? And in politics that means number of eligible voters who actually went to the polls. Which these days, is not many. Not a big surprise, is it?

  Not only is it easy to tear down, we've been taught that God apparently favors this tactic as well.

  Sure He does.

  Well, why else would the other religion be always portrayed as of the devil? Why does anything different than our own form of worship, belief, or ethics get preached, taught, and warned against?

  Fear works pretty well for a while, but eventually, the voters stay away from the polls, and the faithful fall away. Because they're not really flocking to, they're running away. And when there's nothing left to run away from, or they realize they've been running from a lie, a made-up threat, your customer loyalty takes a big hit.

  Look at the empty polling places.

  The deserted churches and empty pews.

  Think there might be a better way? Think the corporations might have got at least one thing right?

  Now there's a scary thought.

Massachussetts: Health Insurance For All

  It's a good first step.

  No, I haven't seen details of the plan, just an overview, but it's still a good first step, because health care is something that the government simply has to provide. In an era when few people can afford unsubsidized health care, and many can afford none at all, this falls under the category of those services the government must be responsible for.

  Just like any other part of the infrastructure.

  It is outrageous that there are millions who are sick and dying simply because they can't afford basic care. I'm not going into a litany of the facts, they're pretty well known. And those of us who consider ourselves spiritual people need to applaud the efforts Massachussetts is making, whether they go far enough or not, simply because they are steps in the right direction.

  Go Massachussetts!

  How can you say you love your brother or sister if you have the means to relieve their suffering but do not?