Friday, March 9, 2012

Cerebellar Web Post 35-6457A

15 March 6457
Cerebellar Web Post 35-6457A

Attn: Dr. Pweet
Archaeosociology Department Chair,
Bradbury University
Vallis Marinelles, Mars

Dear Dr. Pweet:

As requested, here is my report of this month's archaeosocial findings from the field study teams on Origin Planet (formerly known as Earth) on the sparsely-populated continent of North America, substation 17, in what was formerly the state of Ohio.

We have managed, through chrono-magnetic reconstruction, to recover some electronic discourse from a discussion medium "social media." These discussions took place on what used to be called a "computer" -- an extremely early form of our cerebellar interfaces. This week we have drawn some startling conclusions about the ancient practices of social and political thinking from the early twenty-first century. Based on the conversations we have re-imaged and analyzed, we have concluded that people were required -- perhaps under threat of imprisonment -- to join one of two sides: either "liberal" or "conservative" viewpoints. Each side seems to have used the other's name as a kind of profanity.

We deduced that they were required to join these factions based on the disproportionately small number of people who seem to have "crossed the line" regarding their philosophies. (A farily common exception to this rule seems to be a rather significant number of people who seem to have held the oxymoronical belief that the killing of fetuses was bad and that the killing of those convicted of crimes was good, or vice-versa. [For reference, you'll forgive me if I remind you that in this epoch of history, people actually did find reasons to take the lives of their fellow humans; some of these reasons even made killing not only lawful but laudable].)

It did seem that, although apparently compelled to join one side or the other, they were allowed some lateral mobility in their beliefs. First, those called "conservatives." We have broken them into three categories:

IMMOVABILITY LEVEL 3: These people (who seem to have been of a very low intelligence or else intentionally evil) seem to have had disdain for anyone different from themselves. The males regarded the females as inferior. They also regarded those of what were once called "different races" as inferior. (There was no apparent consistency for this, except for a larger number of those considering themselves "white" and, therefore, superior.) Likewise, they viewed those who lead homosexual lifestyles as below human -- they seem to have believed that homosexual people did not deserve the human dignities that we now deem as intrinsic and that they were even in need of  violent treatment and ridicule. (One group even seems to have denied warriors the right to peaceful burial ceremonies based on the controversy; they even implied that God is capable of hate and they went so far as to speak for the Deity in their protests.) Conservatism, to them, seems to have been a matter of hating (and attempting to force into compliance) anyone who held different beliefs than theirs. I should add that several of our researchers were so deeply disturbed by their evolutionary kinship to such heinous humans that they put themselves in therapeutic sleep stasis a few weeks ago and have yet to come out, which is one reason for this delayed report.

IMMOVABILITY LEVEL 2: These people seemed to have pretended (or had actually deluded themselves into believing that) they were concerned about their fellow humans, but they harbored prejudices that became evident in their statements. For instance, during this period, when races still existed, they spoke out against interracial couplings, as one person put it, "for the sake of the children, who would be...different." Others said that women were equal, in terms of  intellectual abilities, to men (there seems to have been some question about this in ancient history) yet they spoke out against women holding various male-dominated professions.

IMMOVABILITY LEVEL 1: These people seem to have held "tradition" in high regard, but they were not against changes driven by sound reasoning and compassion. While they respected and preferred things like heterosexually-based families (and even believed that they were the only "real" form of family), they recognized and pitied the intense emotional pain that came from the exclusion of differently-oriented people from social goings-on and they sought to reach compromises that would minimize said suffering. In terms of religion (a topic which seems to have been based on exclusionary philosophies, by those mentioned above) these people held strong, heartfelt beliefs but they sincerely respected the beliefs of those who were different then they. They seem to have argued for dignity of religion: all religions -- an idea that was supported by the ancient document known as The Constitution of the United States of America. Their objective seems to have been to preserve those things in which they believed, but to recognize and respect the beliefs of others, so long as those beliefs did not impinge upon their own freedoms.

The next group we studied were those labeled "liberals.' They, too, can be broken down into three lateral groups.

FLEXIBILITY LEVEL 3: These people were concerned only for themselves, it seems. They said whatever they wanted, without regard for the feelings or beliefs of those around them. They raged against any notion of tradition. Breaking rules was their obsession and this manifested itself in everything from destructive behavior to rudeness to complete lack of respect for their fellow humans. Any path to comfort or pleasure was taken by them, regardless of consequence. Failures were the fault of everyone but themselves, strangely; society or government was blamed for all individual failures and personal responsibility was a concept that was foreign to this group. They seemed to fear conspiracy in everything and to use this as an excuse to, as one writer said, "stick it to the man" -- "the man," we assume, being government or organization of any kind.

FLEXIBILITY LEVEL 2:  This group was composed of people who seemed to have used a "live and let live" facade in order to escape responsibility of ethics or civil social behavior. They took a pious stance of not "judging" others that more or less amounted to an excuse to avoid thinking about the issues of wrong and right. They also worked extremely diligently to prove their tolerance of others -- so diligently that their support amounted to a kind of insult to those they professed to support. In their embarrassingly obvious efforts to convince others that they supported, say, homosexuals or minorities, they actually ended up being obsessed with the defining differences between them and their acquaintances. They ceaselessly referred to their friends as "gay" or "[insert minority here]" instead of, simply, "friend." Oxymoronically, they carried a banner of equality but spoke words and acted in ways that indicated a very slanted or, at least, classification-based view. They seem to have been completely unaware of their paradoxes.

FLEXIBILITY LEVEL 1: This group was truly compassionate. They had a sincere desire to see harmony among all humans, but they proceeded with logic and sound reasoning. While they had no respect for traditions that were exclusionary or unfair, they did respect traditions that gladdened the hearts of others -- even those they didn't agree with. These people truly believed that all men and women were created equal and they showed no preference for those who simply stood out as different. They truly saw all humans as one -- and they would fight for the right of all (even traditionalists ) to seek life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

CONCLUSIONS: People of 21st century Origin Planet were relatively basic thinkers, which is probably why God was a little hard for them to find at the time. (Our records show that God only started regular, unbroken and un-selective face-to-face communication with humankind some time in the 40th century. If you will recall, God's statements at the 78th meeting of the Solar Council included citing "humankind's sufficiently evolved intellect and morality" as a reason for this initial visit and for the continued literal presence in our existences.)

As basic thinkers, twenty-first century humans were comforted by frameworks on which to hang their ideas. Drunken and passionate pride and regurgitated philosophies were common among thinkers on both these "conservative" and "liberal" sides. What is frustrating is the obvious perspective, from our vantage, that if the conservatives of IMMOVABILITY LEVEL 1 and the liberals of FLEXIBILITY LEVEL 1 would have started intellectual commerce sooner (and had allowed each other to think things through without resorting to ad hominem and/or violence), God might have manifested to the Solar Council centuries earlier and the horrific 35th Century Virtual Depopulation of Origin Planet may never have occurred.

I will continue to analyze this communication medium in order to gain an historical perspective on such a hive-minded society. We're still puzzled by their compulsion, at that time, to share each detail of their daily lives rather than their thoughts on issues.

Until the next post...

Professor Myrel Giln

No comments:

Post a Comment