On my update about the hurricane conspiracy theories, James brought up an excellent point which I’d been overlooking. An excerpt from that:
People all over are trying to wrap their heads around this whole travesty, and unless there is a clear-cut, single answer (which there isn’t), this is the way that humans will deal with such events. We try to rationalize it, reason it any way we can.
James’ point is a really powerful one I think. Namely, that it’s completely natural (and good) for people to try to invest events with meaning, and to build up story-systems which allow them to do that. A conspiratorial explanation of the hurricane is in spirit no different from a religious one which is no different from a scientific one. Each one is a model we use to interact with and grasp things that are beyond us. There’s nothing inherently wrong with using them, because that tendency is completely human.
So where does the problem come in? What have I been reacting to? A major part of it for me is realizing that conspiracy-thinking sometimes takes it toll on me. It puts me into a position where I’m thinking things that are crazy and which edge me away from where I want to be. It’s not so much a symptom of conspiracy theory in particular as it is a danger of life in general - being distracted away from the true path.
The other issue I’m working through with all this is the nature of belief. I used to think that belief was this big bad horrible thing that we should stay away from, and that we ought to keep our options open and allow for unlimited possibilities. But I came to a place with that where I realized that what I want is not endless possibilities but to make a choice about the direction and shape that my life is going to take. Endless possibilities are fantastic at certain times of your life. At other times, they can turn into a directionless kind of floating where so many things are potential that nothing ever becomes actual. What I’m realizing is that in some sense what beliefs are good for is in limiting your possibilities, making you choose a form, a shape and a path.
That’s the struggle I find myself in right now, so that’s the struggle which I’m projecting out on conspiracy theorists and the rest of the world. I’m ready to stop asking what if? and ready to make something actually happen.
- END -
ASSOCIATED CONTENT @TMBCHR (Auto-Generated)
- A Definition of Conspiracy Theory
- Origin of the New World Order Conspiracy?
- The Cowardice of Conspiracy
- Conspiracy Eats Itself
- More Conspiracy Polls
3 Comments
I haven’t been keeping up with the hurricane/orleans thing, but I read about supposed ‘potshots’ at helicopters and rescue boats. Is there actual footage of these events recorded, photos or anything, or is it just hearsay? The reason I’m asking is because I open IE and MSN’s news page pops up with this:
I know that the Guard may help in disaster situations, but fully armed?
blah blah the rest
Glad you caught the point I was trying to make, Tim. And I can understand your exhaustion at the CT angle on everything. I used to have a girlfriend who would amuse me by listening to my far-fetched, tongue-in-cheek freeform CT rants but after a while, if I ever had anything to say that I really meant with all my heart and soul, she had a hard time believing me. It was the Boy Who Cried Wolf Syndrome manifest in my relationship with this girl. After a while, in any conversation about topical matters, she’d look over at me and say, “Maybe it was the Nazis!” She expected me to have that same blanket explanation for everything, and I began to see that I was using CT as a shortcut to thinking.
CT can be helpful in facillitating thinking, but when it becomes an all-encompassing crutch, it makes C-theorists intellectually lazy. “Blame it on the Masons” “Blame it on the Bilderbergers” “Blame it on the Bush family” and so on.
So I incorporate CT into my approach to topics, because it CAN be useful, if implemented the right way. I don’t see it as scapegoating or trying to find the blame, though– I see it as a doorway to more open-minded conversations. If introduced properly, it can take a conversation into altogether new realms.
The most common thing I encounter is when I bring up a CT and someone remarks that they won’t indulge me my opinion because “it’s bullshit”. They refuse to play on that level of a playing field with me. But once it’s introduced, even the person arguing against CT starts to fall into that mode of thinking. I’ve literally had conversations with people who, by the end of it, were using CT logic to justify why CT is bullshit!
By CT logic, I mean that these people, after denouncing my right to take the conversation into obscure or esoteric speculation, begin to explore their OWN speculations, whether they know it or not. It frees their subconscious mind in a way– maybe they are thinking “Well, if this guy believes in such quackery, then maybe I can make this point I’ve always wanted to make and he’ll understand.”
I notice that people associate CT with “victimhood” but I make a point to not go that route. I recall a conversation with a college professor at a party where I asserted that maybe the conspirators were the REAL victims of conspiracies. I mean, if the Masons really do believe all that Hiram Abiff B.S. and also want to take over the world, then what does that say about them? What’s so special about “The Craft” that it enables world domination? All I know is, the world hasn’t been conquered yet, and still those Masons keep having meetings. I guess I’m more curious as to what they get out of being a Mason than I am about their secret intents.
Same with magick: I used to be in a band with a Satanist in high school, and he was the nicest, meekest, kindest person I’d known at that point. I asked him why Satan as opposed to other idols, man included– he replied, “Satan’s the Ultimate Rebel”. I asked him if he ever used magic, and he said he didn’t because he tried a spell once and it backfired. I laughed, but his face screwed up and he barked “It’s NOT funny!”
It doesn’t take much to make something happen. In the case of Cindy Sheehan, it took the death of her son, but for others who were waiting for a cause to believe in (or perhaps exploit) her protest was a catalytic event. The question is, once one starts making things happen, where will their commitment to keep making things happen settle?
Any police detective will tell you that the first rule in any investigation is that there are no coincidences. That’s how they are trained, and they conduct themselves accordingly while following leads. Moreover, the whole justice system is premised on this basic assumption. Every case is, to one degree or another, nothing but an attempt by each respective party to convince the jury that their particular conspiracy theory makes the most sense.
When viewed in that light, a seasoned detective is nothing more than a professional conspiracy theorist. The only difference between an amateur sleuth and the long arm of the law is the fact that the latter have much more resources and manpower. The “no-coincidence commandment” is a successful way to operate in any situation.