Two-eyed truth as anathema -- in a cyclopean civilization

Iconic Extrajudicial Execution of Jesus through Osama by US? (Part #13)

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]

---

It is readily assumed that truth is singular, unambiguous and uncomplex. This is most notably challenged by the nature of light, a favoured metaphor of truth. Light is best understood as variously characterized by particles (photons) and waves -- whose relationship is clarified in physics by the Uncertainty Principle. and the wave-particle duality.

The challenge of relevance to this argument is well-illustrated by the lack of depth perception characteristic of vision through a single eye -- cyclopean vision as contrasted with stereoscopic vision. The latter requires binocular cues (from both eyes) include stereopsis, yielding depth from binocular vision through exploitation of parallax. The strategic effort of the Pax Americana to eliminate alternatives -- and especially by taking out their figureheads like Salvador Allende or Osama -- reduces the US to a cyclopean condition, namely world leadership totally lacking in depth perception.

The case for "polyocular vision" has long been made by Magoroh Maruyama (Polyocular Vision or Subunderstanding, Organization Studies, 2004). Like surveyors, astronomers recognize how essential it is to have a very long baseline for accurate observation. There is no question that this cross-linking process is a feature of good intelligence work in relation to tangibles -- as claimed with respect to tracking down "Osama". However it is eminently clear that the process is lacking in the case of intangibles -- in a way reminiscent of the "failure of imagination" of which the US Senate Intelligence report accused the intelligence community regarding 9/11 (Groupthink: the Search for Archaeoraptor as a Metaphoric Tale, 2002).

How naive is the US assumption of comprehensive global oversight under such circumstances -- especially when the "vision" metaphor is so strategically ubiquitous? Is it to be assumed that such coherent oversight it to be derived from global intelligence-gathering systems such as ECHELON, perhaps to be appropriately understood as "cyclopean" -- as the argument for a complementary system suggests (From ECHELON to NOLEHCE: enabling a strategic conversion to a faith-based global brain, 2007).

The point is remarkably exemplified by the judgement made by John Brennan as Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism (White House Press Briefing, 2 May 2011) concerning Osama. As noted above, he asserted to the media of the world that Osama was the type of person who hid behind women -- a remark subsequently "redacted" [Memo to US intelligence community: do not underestimate your enemy's women, however much you choose to frame them as oppressed; read Elise Boulding, The Underside of History: a view of women through time, 1976]

In self-righteously claiming monopoly of the appropriate worldview and its articulation, the US is in a tricky position for reasons such as the following, which merit careful reflection:

• Cyclopean vision:
  • in a cyclopean civilization (as at present), would any two-eyed person necessarily be seen as unfortunately (if not dangerously) disabled -- perhaps to be seen as in need of remedial help or corrective surgery -- especially if they made strange claims to "depth perception"?
  • how does the assumption relate to the insights of the classic tale by H. G. Wells: In the Country of the Blind the One-Eyed Man is King (The Country of the Blind and Other Stories, 1911)?
  • are there other modalities with which it is fruitful to engage with reality, as separately argued (Cyclopean Vision vs Poly-sensual Engagement, 2006)
• Needing an enemy as a second eye:
  • if there was nevertheless a subconscious awareness of the need for a complementary perspective, would it manifest as the need for an enemy, possibly as "terrorist" like Osama (see numerous References)?
  • does an "enemy" effectively function as an "extra eye" to offer a distorted form of depth perception -- better than none?
  • should what is framed as "terrorism" be understood as functioning as a second "eye" -- exemplified by Osama again?
  • does the desperate need for an enemy -- requiring 33 intelligence agencies in the USA -- enable and empower that society to sustain the existence of a "virtual" enemy, even if the reality of its manifestation has to be encouraged by false flag operations?
  • does the dimly sensed need for collective intelligence of a higher degree of integrative sophistication require a (new) public enemy as a focus for the intelligence activity in support of governance?
  • does the threat of such an enemy trigger a "healthy" invigoration of society -- fulfilling the traditional US wild west "wanted man" scenario?
• Adversarial alternatives:
  • is the need for an "enemy" potentially true of any alternative, even within adversarial democracy and judicial processes?
  • does any "alternative" automatically fit the model of undermining the pattern of law and order desired by some faction -- offering another form of second "eye"?
  • does the democratic process, and the adversarial relationship between parties, in fact embody to a degree the problematic experience of "alternative" perspectives -- it being noteworthy that, even in the USA, Democrats and Republicans are liable to demonise each other as betraying the values of American society in a process highly reminiscent of the attitude to foreign "others" such as al-Qaida?

Together these point to the essential role of the "other", and the manner with which to engage with it. Efforts to frame this in terms of tolerance inhibit recognition of its more existentially challenging dimensions. In a sense both Osama and Jesus are about "otherness" -- breaking pattern and breaking frame. This is necessarily profoundly threatening as well as being emblematic of the process of change and regeneration (Human Intercourse: Intercourse with Nature and Intercourse with the Other, 2007).

Much has been made within the USA of the question by George Bush: "Why Do They Hate Us, When We're So Good?" (Peter Ford, 'Why do they hate us?' The Christian Science Monitor, 27 September 2001; David Wallechinsky, Why Do They Hate Us? 11 October 2001; Olivier Roy, Why Do They Hate Us? Not Because of Iraq, The New York Times, 22 July 2005; Jacob G. Hornberger, Why Do They Hate Us? The Future of Freedom Foundation, 9 August 2006; Mohsin Hamid, 'Why Do They Hate Us?' The Washington Post, 22 July 2007; David Schimke, Why Do "They" Hate Us? Utne Reader, 30 March 2010). The question has been extended to include the West more generally (Robert Fisk, Why do they hate the West so much, we will ask, The Independent, 7 January 2009).

One response to the question -- in the light of aspirations to a cyclopean imperium -- is that the dynamics of such an imperium are only viable if it evokes a hatred to which the "good" can respond to justify and reinforce their self-perception. It is not a question of "why do they hate us" rather it is a question of "why do we need to be hated"?

The argument for the "two-eyed" nature of truth has notably been made from a Christian perspective by John A. T. Robinson (Truth is Two-eyed, 1979). Both theology and mythology have long recognized the larger truth emerging from deities of contrasting values -- as with the peaceful deities and wrathful deities of Buddhism. Such a larger truth is basic to the symbolism of Freemasonry through the two pillars Boaz and Jachin -- between which those seeking further insight are obliged to pass. What is there to be derived from cultural memory concerning the cognitive role of twins in mythology -- and their tendency to quarrel, articulated as a form of sibling rivalry? Also relevant is the Roman deity Janus.

Do current understandings of the necessarily contrasting Jesus-Osama perspectives potentially constitute together a requisite baseline for depth perception? If so, then through what unthinking perversity does society focus so obsessively on the New Testament recommendation:

And if thine eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast [it] from thee: it is better for thee to enter into life with one eye, rather than having two eyes to be cast into hell fire. (Matthew 18:9)

Is this to be held as implying that any "bipartisan" arrangement -- involving a necessarily "offensive" alternative worldview -- would result in society being "cast into hell fire"? Does this effort to remove one eye endanger the other -- especially when the two are so similar? Rather than collective intelligence, is there then a possibility of collective blindness? Eyeless in Gaza?

These points highlight questions such as the following:

• does the dominant cyclopean mindset explain the elusive, unsustainability of bipartisan approaches in modern democracies?
• is there a kind of "perversity" to diversity, as it is conventionally understood within a psychocultural imperium?
• how might single-frame modelling of the world be reframed (Transcending One-eyed Global Modelling Perspectives, 2010)?
• how to derive potentially relevant "neglected" insights from "other" cultures, as suggested by Susantha Goonatilake (Toward a Global Science: mining civilizational knowledge, 1999) and reflected in the work of  A. C. Graham (Yin-Yang and the Nature of Correlative Thinking, The Institute of East Asian Philosophies, 1986)?

---

[Parts: First | Prev | Last | All] [Links: To-K | From-K | From-Kx | Refs ]