Compassion for Cruel People

“Then said Jesus, Father, forgive them; for they know not what they do. And they parted his raiment, and cast lots.” ~Luke 23:34 KJV.

The world is a cruel place. If you have any doubt about that, turn on the news. Watching any news channel for no more than five minutes makes it abundantly clear that there is no shortage of cruelty in all levels of society – from that of the lowliest janitor or laborer to that of the wealthiest financier or ruler – and in all cultural milieus – from the most technologically challenged tribal villages to the most technologically advanced urban centers.

Cruelty is commonplace. There is nothing special or remarkable about sadism. It is widespread and universal. It infects the human condition from childhood through advanced age. We are hard pressed to escape it.

Essentially, as I have discovered, after some reflection, cruelty is a way for weak people to feel empowered. What is truly remarkable is compassion and empathy – that takes inner strength and courage, especially in the face of cruelty.

Cruelty is easy.

Compassion is hard.

And compassion for cruel people is hardest of all.

When one confronts cruelty or a cruel person, the experience is invariably painful in some way – physically or psychologically. The most natural response to cruelty, therefore, is to respond in kind – with more cruelty – to seek to hurt or inflict pain on the people who inflict pain on oneself. The experience of pain makes one feel powerless, and one seeks to respond by inflicting pain on others in order to feel empowered.

One might seek to inflict pain on those whom one deems to be responsible for one’s own pain, thereby gaining a sense of retribution – or on some random, hapless bystander or scapegoat, thereby gaining the satisfaction of feeling oneself to be higher up in the food chain and not quite so helpless as the experience of pain and cruelty invariably make one feel. The sad reality to this situation is that if one responds to cruelty with more cruelty, then one is, essentially, succumbing to the influence of cruelty – becoming infected by the contagion of cruelty – allowing the inhumanity of others and of the circumstances one experiences to rob one of one’s own humanity.

It is a case of “an eye for an eye mak[ing] the whole world blind,” to quote Gandhi.

The most difficult thing in the world is to respond to cruelty with compassion, with kindness, with understanding. What that requires is tremendous inner strength – the strength to absorb pain and not allow a painful experience to render one heartless, unsympathetic and vindictive. It then requires one to try to appreciate the fact that those who are cruel towards you are, invariably, themselves in pain – that they are reacting out of their own personal sources of pain. That they seek to inflict pain on others in an attempt to alleviate the pain that they themselves feel, for some reason. It then requires one to seek to understand their source of pain in order to feel compassion for them.

If one is able to accomplish this truly heroic feat – a feat more admirable than winning any Olympic gold medal, in my humble opinion – one is able to respond to cruelty with compassion, with kindness, with empathy, and, thereby, one is able to overcome it, and not be overcome by it. One is then truly able to “love your enemy” and “turn the other cheek” and, in doing so, help to make the world a slightly better place.

The Noise Media

The news media are supposed to be about informing the public. A society needs reliable sources of information to function well. The purpose of the news media – the so-called “fourth estate” of the realm – is to supply that information reliably and effectively.

One of the reasons we often find ourselves wallowing in incapacitated confusion is the failure of the news media to fulfill its obligation to our society – to inform the public about the facts as opposed to pulling the wool over our eyes with propaganda or keeping us distracted and confused with the circus act of excessive sensationalism.

There are many factors at play here, making it hard to gain a true appreciation of the problem. There is, fundamentally, the constitutionally protected right to freedom of expression and a free press, which should, by rights, allow for alternative media sources to exist and thrive. However, there is also a tendency among some alternative media outlets to engage in sensationalism, unverified sources, distracting clickbait and, sometimes, outright misinformation. This only serves to muddy the waters of good journalism.

As such, we are forced to navigate the dire straits of Messina, as it were, with Scylla and Charybdis on either side of us. On the one hand, we have a frequently ineffective and out of touch establishment media — often compromised by apparent deep state connections. For example, there is compelling evidence to suggest that the CIA has infiltrated establishment news vehicles like CNN and the Washington Post — making them, in effect, no more than mouthpieces for deep state propaganda. On the other hand, we have noisy, confusing and confused alternative media sources which often lack the self-discipline to verify their material, deal in hard evidence and avoid needless, over-the-top, lurid, mindless sensationalism. Unfortunately, this is often an unpleasant necessity for them to make their presence felt in the crowded alternative media landscape.

The answer to these problems can never be censorship, which would be undemocratic, unconstitutional and anti-intellectual. It would feed into mechanisms of state control, the perpetuation of disinformation and the suppression of valid information. However, it’s no less problematic to permit the noisy alternative media to drown out all intelligent, meaningful and civilized public discourse!

I can only hope that the internet, which has been somewhat self-policing thus far, will avoid the tendency to descend into the cyber-equivalent of a lynch mob, as it frequently does. I can only hope that alternative media sources — the so-called “fifth estate” — will follow the example of the noted outlaw media organization, Wikileaks, which is simultaneously notorious and exemplary for the quality and standards of its information. In essence, it would be in everyone’s interests if the alternative media dealt in hard evidence and discussions based on hard facts, not in wild speculation or excessive sensationalism!

The new media landscape of the early 21st century is an untamed “Wild West” of unorthodox ideas and revolutionary perspectives. That is certainly a good thing, because it keeps public discourse fresh and engaging and prevents us from sliding into stale clichés and disingenuous talking points read by hired actors from teleprompters. However, it also needs to be authentic and reliable. It needs to fulfill its obligations to the public trust and it needs to respect the public’s intelligence – neither of which, sadly, have been upheld by the mainstream establishment media.

The “Denial of Science”

These days, one frequently comes across the term “science denier”. It has almost become an accusation – a charge that even though one is an educated adult living in the 21st century, one has willfully opted to deny the all-pervasive, all-powerful supremacy of Science. It is as though “Science” has become a god, of sorts, and scientific materialism has become a religion. In this framework of the new religion of atheistic scientific materialism, the so-called “science deniers” are the new heretics and, it might be suggested by the science-fanatics, should be burned at the stake!

But what does it really mean to be a “science denier”? Does it mean denying the veracity of Newton’s laws of motion or Einstein’s theories of relativity? That is not the denial of science – that is merely ignorance about scientific matters. Can anyone seriously claim that, living in the 21st century, one actually denies these basic scientific truths? I can hardly imagine that to be the case.

The adherents of  modern scientific materialism allege that the so-called “science deniers” are regressive medievalists who are intent on perpetuating a theocracy rooted in superstition, witch-hunts and religious fundamentalism. That is an extreme caricature and can hardly be taken seriously by any rational adult in modern society. In fact, I would suggest, the term “science denier” is being used to attack those who question the ethics of what goes on in the name of cutting-edge science and scientific research. For example, are GMOs and the practices of Big Pharma ethical? Is the cloning of human beings ethical? Is transhumanism ethical? These are tough questions that, in my opinion, need to be debated in the public square. However, as long as there are powerful corporate interests who stand to lose a lot of money by the public disclosure of ethical issues such as these, one can rest assured that they will devote themselves to the cover-up of such ethical dilemmas and to perpetuating disinformation about them, such as labelling ethical dissenters as “science deniers”!

If being a “science denier” meant questioning the veracity of certain scientific ideas, then one needs to go no further than scientists themselves! The field of quantum mechanics, for example, has revealed the reality of the anomalous behavior of subatomic particles that frequently contradict long-held, established ideas such as Newtonian and Einsteinian mechanics. Indeed, science takes pride in such self-contradiction – self-denial, as it were! There is nothing more scientific than the denial of science, because if quantum mechanics can disprove Einstein’s theories of relativity, it implies that quantum mechanics has overthrown the established doctrine and proclaimed itself as the new “god” – all in the name of science!

But the “denial of science”, in its colloquial usage, means anything but that. It is, in fact, a politically charged term, used to label anyone who stands opposed, on ethical grounds, to a radical science-oriented agenda, as a benighted, regressive, superstitious luddite with medieval attitudes. And modern corporations like Monsanto (who sells GMOs and carcinogenic herbicides like Roundup), its auxiliary Bayer (who once sold heroin as a cough remedy for children and manufactured the Zyklon B poison gas used on concentration camp inmates by Nazis) and others get to push their questionable, if not utterly depraved, agendas as cutting-edge science.

To question the limits of our current understanding of the universe is not the “denial of science”. It is to suggest that our current understanding of science is inadequate and incomplete. It is to suggest that the universe is more complex and profound than we mortal human beings may ever be capable of understanding. Is that the basis of religious awe? Perhaps it is – but perhaps it is no different than the religious awe expressed by the likes of Einstein and Oppenheimer when confronted by the awe-inspiring wonders exposed to them by their own scientific work.

The Limits of Human Science

In an attempt to carry on a dialogue with the scientific empiricists among us, I would humbly like to submit a few thoughts and arguments about what I perceive to be the limitations of science and the scientific method. This is not necessarily intended to be an argument in favor of religion or mysticism – only an attempt to question the degree to which some of us, paradoxically, put our absolute faith in scientific knowledge, to the exclusion of anything else. Nor is this intended to question the validity of the scientific method – it’s really about questioning some of the basic assumptions we make about science.

One of the basic steps in the scientific method is “observation”. Empirical science is entirely predicated on observation, as it is the first step in the process, followed by the steps of “analysis” and “inference”. Newton, for example, developed his laws of motion when he observed an apple falling from a tree, as the legend goes, which is an anecdotal way of pointing out that, essentially, Newton’s laws of motion reflect his rational explanation, in the language of Mathematics, of the behavior of physical objects in the observed universe – the key point being that it is a rationalization (i.e. mathematical explanation) of observations.

Einstein added a unique twist to the scientific method in that he often worked from what he called “thought experiments”. Einstein was also a major proponent of the role of the imagination in science, which was a significant departure from the scientific method preceding him – much more driven by empiricism, i.e. experiment and observation. The scientific method, as it stands today appears to follow an iterative paradigm in which we have such steps as “Think of Interesting Questions” and “Formulate Hypotheses”, etc. However, it still appears to be fundamentally predicated on the apparently all-important step of “Making Observations”.

Now here’s the thing about making observations – they are essentially subjective. Every scientific observation ever made on record has been made by a human being with five senses and with a uniquely human point of view. It might be argued that scientific instruments provide us with a more objective means of observing reality, but let’s keep in mind that every scientific instrument ever built was designed and built by human beings with five senses (or by machines designed and built by similar human beings) and intended to be read by other human beings with five senses. Thus, in design, architecture and interface, every scientific instrument ever built essentially serves and reinforces the human five-sensory perception of reality. Einstein’s approach of deploying the creative imagination lends his theoretical work a uniquely original, out-of-the-box perspective. Nevertheless, in order to be accepted as mainstream science, Einstein’s theories had to be subjected to mathematical elaboration and empirical validation (by means of scientific experiments and instruments designed by human beings with a five-sensory perspective on reality).

Following Einstein’s example, if we allow our imagination to take flight, at this stage, and conduct a small thought experiment … let’s imagine that somewhere in our vast universe there is an intelligent alien life form of some sort – a silicon-based life-form, for argument's sake, with eleven senses, three hearts and five brains operating in parallel, like nodes in a computer server cluster. In other words, a life form as far removed from our own as we can imagine. Let’s imagine that they eat raw sand and other silicates for breakfast and that they can see a different range of electromagnetic frequencies than we human beings can (e.g. radio frequencies, UV frequencies, etc.) and hear a different range of audio frequencies than we can, much like bats, for example. Let’s even imagine that their sense of touch is not “in tune” with ours, so that they might be able to walk through walls or on water. Would the perception and experience of reality of such an alien being be remotely similar to our own? Of course not. Therefore, would their observation of nature be remotely in sync with our own? Obviously not.

If, therefore, this alien being had a profoundly different observational experience of reality than our own, and if, as we understand, observation is the integral step in the scientific method, does it not follow that any science developed by this alien intelligence would have absolutely no correlation or similarity with our own concept of science? Is it not reasonable to suppose that this alien science would be fundamentally different from what we must now term “human science” – different in ways that we cannot possibly imagine? Indeed, it may be the case that not only will an alien intelligence arrive at different physical principles than our own, based on their very different observation of reality, but, in my opinion, we cannot even be sure that the mathematical systems they develop have any correlation with our own. We would tend to suppose that 2+2=4 is a universal fact, but can we be sure of that? Unless we happen to encounter an alien intelligence that corroborates that as a universal fact, we cannot be absolutely certain – it remains an assumption.

If we then conclude that our present understanding of “human science” is limited by our five-sensory experience of reality, and if, one day, we happened to develop a sixth sense, out of the blue, is it not possible that our new perspective of reality, afforded to us now by our six senses, might render all of existing human science as simplistic or incomplete or even, possibly, deeply flawed in some way that we now cannot fathom in our five-sensory state? In which case, how can we have any clue that what we now consider to be indisputable fact is not utterly absurd from a more enlightened point of view, even as the Renaissance theory of the bodily humors or the Medieval ideas about medicinal blood-letting are from our post-modern point of view?

Thus, if we consider any of the so-called “conspiracy theories” or “mystical ideas” out there, such as Deepak Chopra’s ideas about alternative healing or David Icke’s theory that the moon might be an artificial satellite or Masaru Emoto’s ideas on the effect of human consciousness on the crystalline structure of water – are we justified in claiming that such ideas contradict modern science? Isn’t it more accurate to state that such ideas contradict human science as we currently understand it – in its current stage of development? Does that invalidate these alternative ideas or render them inaccurate? Surely not! Unless and until we can find solid evidence definitively to demonstrate the fallacy of such ideas, we must at least concede that they are possible, however improbable we may consider them to be. And even if we do find the evidence to refute any of these ideas, how can we be certain that we are not misreading or misinterpreting the evidence or the idea?

Given all of these considerations, is it reasonable for some of us to assert that our current understanding of modern science gives us the right and ability to ridicule any ideas that may seem to be absurd from the modern scientific perspective? Or should we not, at least, try to be more open-minded and accepting of apparently unconventional ideas, considering that some of them may have the potential to be enormously beneficial to humankind?

In Defense of “Conspiracy Theories”

Let’s imagine living in Soviet Russia during the 1960’s – the height of the Cold War – and let’s imagine that the KGB used the Russian phrase teoriya zagorova to signal to the Soviet public that certain ideas, beliefs and sources of information were to be marginalized, even shunned – how would you, as a literate adult in the 21st Century look upon those ideas and information? I think the rational response would be to take a closer look at them, for the simple reason that the Soviet-era KGB (or, for that matter, the SVR, the contemporary Russian intelligence agency) is not, by any reasonable measure, to be regarded as a reliable source of public information.

Now, let’s flashback to November 22, 1963 – the assassination of President John F. Kennedy, commonly believed to have been perpetrated by a lone, crazed assassin, Lee Harvey Oswald, from the Texas School Book Depository. This was the official version of events propagated by the mainstream press of the time. However, since then, a small group of out-of-the-box thinkers, based upon significant evidence – as publicized, most famously, in the Oliver Stone film JFK – began to suggest that the Kennedy assassination was not as it had been made out to be in the mainstream press. There may have been other shooters involved, most notably a shooter from behind the so-called “grassy knoll”, while Lee Harvey Oswald may, in fact, have been a CIA operative, and the assassination itself may have been orchestrated by former CIA chief and notorious Nazi sympathizer, Allen Dulles. Well, FSU professor Lance deHaven-Smith, in his 2013 book Conspiracy Theory in America (as cited on Wikipedia), alleges that the CIA “deployed” the usage of the phrase conspiracy theory in the 1960’s in order to discredit such alternative speculation about the Kennedy assassination, and this became the first widespread usage of the term as we understand it today.

What does this historical background about the origin of the modern colloquial usage of the phrase conspiracy theory suggest to the rational adult living in the 21st century? I guess it depends on how much credence one gives to the CIA, as a reliable source of public information – the CIA, one of whose stated objectives is the perpetuation of disinformation, especially with respect to the perceived enemies of the United States! One would have to be gullible indeed, if not utterly deluded, to take the CIA’s word at face value! For the same reason that no rational adult living in the modern world would take the KGB’s or SVR’s word at face value – because these are state-run intelligence agencies for whom deception and disinformation is standard operating procedure!

And yet, somehow, against all sense and reason, the term conspiracy theory has entered common usage as a label with which to discredit and marginalize any information or idea that happens to conflict with or challenge the widely accepted mainstream, institutional interpretation of reality. No doubt, if Galileo or Kepler had introduced their theories about heliocentrism and elliptical planetary orbits in this day and age, the CIA would label them as conspiracy theories, even as the Catholic Church of the 16th century declared them as heretical ideas at the time! The phrase “conspiracy theory” is, in effect, the modern equivalent of the Medieval “heresy” – both are basically ways of flagging certain ideas or information as unacceptable, even threatening, to the establishment. It is the establishment’s way of marginalizing and discrediting any form of knowledge that may threaten its hold over the public imagination.

This is not to suggest that every idea in the realm of the conspiracy theory must, at once, be taken seriously. No doubt, there are many ideas in that domain that have no rational basis or justification, and must, therefore, be considered to be irrational, pending the disclosure of additional supporting evidence! However, it does imply that any idea, however far-fetched or outrageous it may seem to be at first glance, should be assessed on its own merits and on the evidence supporting the claims made. Not because some mainstream institution happens to dismissively label it as a “conspiracy theory” without any serious consideration of the case to be made in support of the claims. Anything less than this essentially amounts to surrendering one’s rational faculties to the self-appointed wardens of taste in our society, many of whom have no more than a grade-school understanding of the facts in question, and certainly are lacking in the specialized knowledge necessary to make sense of them.

An excellent example is the theory, posited by the well-known “conspiracy theorist” David Icke, that the universe is constituted of wave-form energy and that our perception of the solidity of matter is, in fact, a trick of the senses. The immediate, reflexive response of most of us in mainstream society, conditioned as we are by mass media and a simplistic grade-school understanding of Newtonian Physics, would be to roll our eyes and murmur the words “conspiracy theory.” And yet, this idea is substantiated by modern experimental quantum mechanics – wave-particle duality as demonstrated in the well-established “double-slit experiment” – that clearly points to the possibility that all matter is, at its core, wave-form energy, and that electromagnetic energy waves double as material particles upon the intervention of a conscious observer. Similar themes have been expressed by such brilliant minds as Einstein and Planck. Unless one is aware of this background into theoretical and experimental Physics, one would not be in a position to adequately form an informed opinion on what the mass of uninformed humanity might dismiss as a “conspiracy theory.”

As such, the least one can do is to give such ideas a fair hearing, because, who knows? It may not be so far-fetched after all to suggest, for example, that the Bushes and Clintons are involved in narcotics and human trafficking and child abuse, or that the Rockefellers conspired with the Nazis to suppress the healing Solfeggio frequencies. Without a clear knowledge and understanding of the evidence and the case to be made, are we in a position to adjudicate on the credibility of these ideas?

David Icke and the Limits of Human Perception

Recently, I have been delving into the ideas of the reputed conspiracy theorist turned metaphysical philosopher, David Icke. I now own several of his books and have watched and listened to hours of video and audio footage of his talks and interviews, so I think I have some basic understanding of some of his more esoteric and mind-bending ideas.

One of his ideas that really speaks to me is what he says about the very nature of human perception of the universe. Complementing the ideas of such brilliant minds as Tesla and Einstein, Icke delineates his concept of the universe as a giant field of wave-form energy that we human beings inhabit as conscious, sentient entities. We interpret this field energy through our five senses and brain to construct the experience of living in a universe of three-dimensional space and time – physical reality, as it were. But this construct really only exists in our minds – it represents how we human individuals interpret the field of wave-form energy in which we are immersed. In its raw form, the universe is nothing like how we perceive it. Icke likens our perception of the universe to the video programming one might watch on a television screen. The TV interprets the electromagnetic waves that it intercepts via its antenna or cable to construct a recognizable experience of the world. However, in its raw form, the TV signal is simply electromagnetic wave energy.

The really fascinating insight that David Icke provides is that the human sensory apparatus is tuned to an extremely limited bandwidth of frequencies. We can perceive visible light and infra-red (heat) radiation through our senses of sight and touch, we can hear a limited range of sounds through our sense of hearing, we can detect a limited range of odors through our olfactory system, and so forth. But the senses we are capable of constitute an extremely limited range – other members of the animal kingdom, in fact, have their senses tuned to different ranges, so that cats can see in the dark, dogs have highly sensitive senses of smell and hearing, and bats have a highly developed sense of hearing that it uses as a form of acoustic radar to navigate through a world in which it is, essentially blind. Furthermore, while our senses are bombarded with signals at all times, our brain filters these signals so that only a fraction of what our senses perceive actually reaches our awareness.

The bottom line is that what we human beings know and experience as reality is only a tiny fraction of what is really around us – our interpretation of the vast field of wave-form energy that surrounds us is extremely limited. There is much that we cannot perceive simply because of the limitations of our senses and the capacities of our brains to process the information our senses receive. Even with the benefit of peripheral devices and technology, our perception of reality can only be slightly extended.

And this brings David Icke to the startling hypothesis that, potentially, explains much of what we conceive – and dismiss – as the workings of the supernatural. If our perceptions are so limited, how can we reasonably infer that what we see or hear or otherwise sense is all there is to the universe around us? If we are tuned to a specific channel on our TV sets, then we are limited to viewing only the specific programming to which we have access. But that doesn’t mean that all of the other channels don’t exist, simply because we are tuned to one specific channel. They do exist, and if we flipped the channel we would be able to access that programming.

But what if we lived in a backward totalitarian state, where the only programming we could receive on our cheap black-and-white TV sets was the government channel of 24/7 state propaganda? Because we would not have the capacity to flip the channel on our cheap one-channel TV sets, we would never be aware that any of the other channels or programming even existed. We would not be aware that there was such a thing as color TV or multiple TV channels!

Becoming aware of color television and multiple channels of TV programming and, in fact, the ability to flip channels on a whim, would be something like experiencing an expansion of personal consciousness. One becomes aware of other dimensions of reality, beyond what one had previously been exposed to in one's very limited sphere of awareness.

That, in effect, is the profound metaphor that David Icke uses to explain his understanding of what we deem to be the “supernatural” – in other words, phenomena that we dismiss as incredible simply becauase they occur beyond our capacity to perceive them! When you really think about it, it seems perfectly logical, but the implications of this feat of reasoning are profound – and, indeed, terrifying! What, in fact, lurks out there in the universe, behind our very shoulders, perhaps – beyond the reaches of our ability to perceive it? David Icke makes some terrifying suggestions – he claims the existence of parasitic reptilian creatures who feed on human life-force energy. Apparently far-fetched, but is it really?

Having previously written about human perception on my blog, this subject is particularly interesting to me and worth thinking and reading about in greater depth!


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

Location:Sunnyvale, CA, USA

Voices of Doom: Media Sensationalism vs. Mindfulness Meditation

Voices of Doom

Media Sensationalism vs. Mindfulness Meditation

It is a cliché, by now, to state that the media thrives on sensationalism and fear-mongering. This, now obvious and undeniable, fact applies not only to trashy tabloid publications like The National Enquirer, The Daily Mirror and The Sun but even to the pillars of the supposedly mainstream media like CNN and Fox News and, dare I say it, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times and The Washington Post.

It is now apparent that even responsible, mainstream journalism cannot escape the influence of the established tenets of lurid tabloid journalism, namely, that “sex sells” and that “if it bleeds, it leads.” This explains the over-abundance of gratuitously sexual and violent stories and images that have saturated the media for the last century and, even more so, in this century. And, as in the case of Rupert Murdoch, when the press barons of today are actually purveyors of tabloid journalism themselves, the line of distinction between so-called “responsible journalism” and “tabloid journalism” becomes increasingly blurry and indistinguishable.

Recent examples of the absurd depths to which mainstream media institutions have fallen in their ongoing attempts to sensationalize the news, range from CNN’s infamous reporting on such trivial occurrences as the changing seasons as if they were national catastrophes and Fox News’ exaggerated reporting about teenagers on spring break as if they were crime-ridden orgies. You can say what you like about the likes of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst — at least they had some standards! Compared to the blatantly unethical press barons of today, those vendors of early 20th century yellow-journalism come across as the most credible of media outlets!

The long-term effects of this constant, never-ending barrage of negative news can be devastating to the public. It is designed to distract and stimulate the brain’s amygdala, much in the way that Roman imperialists relied on “bread and circuses” to keep the public preoccupied and perpetually on-edge, and oblivious to their own poverty-stricken, miserable condition. Simultaneously, it is about selling massive quantities of newsprint and gleaning millions of dollars in TV advertising revenue. But for the populace at large — over time, they are reduced to a mass of cowering, paranoid, jittery lemmings — perpetually panic-stricken and on the verge of mass hysteria over the slightest untoward circumstance!

It is no overstatement to say that this is, in itself, a dangerous development. When the public has become conditioned by mass media to become so nervous and on-edge that any sudden movement by some unsuspecting bystander may be misinterpreted as a horrendous crime against humanity, then when real tragedy or catastrophe strikes, the public is so completely off the deep end that they would, potentially, give up all their human rights and liberties in the service of the next wannabe authoritarian tyrant or dictator! This is very similar to what has happened in the US over the last decade since 9/11, with the introduction of mass-surveillance, the Patriot Act and the invasion of Iraq as textbook overreactions to an undeniably devastating national tragedy and catastrophe. This trend in the media can only have one long-term consequence — to realize a self-fulfilling prophecy of Doom by inducing a populace of panic-stricken lemmings into a frenzy of hysterical self-destruction!

There is no easy solution to this problem. The only one that has really helped me has been the practice of mindfulness meditation that I have taken up recently. This form of meditation has its roots in the Zen practice of the far-east, which, in turn, developed from Dhyana Buddhism, originally from India. In fact, the Sanskrit word Dhyana, which morphed into Zen when the practice migrated to China and Japan, literally translates to “mindfulness” or “awareness.” This practice ultimately derives from the archaic Indian tradition of yoga and pranayama breathing techniques, which have truly stood the test of time in proving their usefulness and power.

Mindfulness meditation is enormously helpful in enabling one to clear one’s mind and free it from the distractions of day-to-day urban life. It effects a shift in consciousness from the amygdala — the easily excited, constantly distracted seat of consciousness that is so rampantly exploited and manipulated by the modern media — to a deeper seat of consciousness, where one can achieve perspective and think more clearly and profoundly about things. The results for me, after a relatively brief foray into this practice, have been astounding. I feel more at ease and relaxed for the most part and I find my level of reading comprehension has improved significantly. I feel less traumatized by the horrific images to which I am repeatedly exposed on the TV and I find myself more inclined to read good books instead of habitually vegging out in front of the boob tube. I find myself more aware and appreciative of the simpler things in life and, in general, my life has become more meaningful and filled with serendipity and Jungian synchronicity.

While I cannot prove it, I think there is a strong case to be made for a direct causal relationship with these developments to my recent practice of mindfulness meditation. Indeed, the scientific data supports my argument, as mindfulness meditation has been proven to be extremely powerful in treating cases of stress and trauma. The power of mindfulness meditation techniques have even been demonstrated to ease PTSD among military veterans.

The prevailing mood of pessimism and gloom induced by media sensationalism is a problem, especially when such a mood can induce the public to panic-stricken acts of overreaction and self-destructiveness. The only olive branch I can offer as a symbol of hope and peace to the hysterical masses is an entry in my blog urging more people to take up mindfulness meditation. There are apps for this practice on the IOS app store (and, I presume, on Android as well), so it is all the more accessible these days, no longer requiring one to travel to the Himalayas in search of a Guru! Here’s hoping that calmer heads will prevail in the future — and the more calmer heads there are in the future, thanks to Zen and mindfulness meditation, the more likely it will be that they will prevail!