Skip to Main Content (access key 1)
Skip to Search (access key 2)
Skip to Search GO (access key 3)
Skip to comments (access key 4)
Skip to navigation (access key 5)
Skip to top of page (access key 6)
Monday, May 15, 2006 | Reason : In the News | print version Print | Comments |

Document Gerin Oil

by Richard Dawkins

Gerin Oil (or Geriniol to give it its scientific name) is a powerful drug which acts directly on the central nervous system to produce a range of symptoms, often of an anti-social or self-damaging nature. It can permanently modify the child brain to produce adult disorders, including dangerous delusions which are hard to treat. The four doomed flights of September 11th 2001 were Gerin Oil trips: all nineteen of the hijackers were high on the drug at the time. Historically, Geriniolism was responsible for atrocities such as the Salem Witch Hunts and the massacres of Native South Americans by Conquistadores. Gerin Oil fuelled most of the wars of the European Middle Ages and, in more recent times, the carnage that attended the partitioning of the Indian subcontinent and of Ireland.

Gerin Oil intoxication can drive previously sane individuals to run away from a normally fulfilled human life and retreat to closed communities of confirmed addicts. These communities are usually limited to one sex only, and they vigorously, often obsessively, forbid sexual activity. Indeed, a tendency towards agonized sexual prohibition emerges as a drably recurring theme amid all the colourful variations of Gerin Oil symptomatology. Gerin Oil does not seem to reduce the libido per se, but it frequently leads to a preoccupation with reducing the sexual pleasure of others. A current example is the prurience with which many habitual 'Oilers' condemn homosexuality.

As with other drugs, refined Gerin Oil in low doses is largely harmless, and can serve as a lubricant on social occasions such as marriages, funerals, and state ceremonies. Experts differ over whether such social tripping, though harmless in itself, is a risk factor for upgrading to harder and more addictive forms of the drug.

Medium doses of Gerin Oil, though not in themselves dangerous, can distort perceptions of reality. Beliefs that have no basis in fact are immunized, by the drug's direct effects on the nervous system, against evidence from the real world. Oil-heads can be heard talking to thin air or muttering to themselves, apparently in the belief that private wishes so expressed will come true, even at the cost of other people's welfare and mild violation of the laws of physics. This autolocutory disorder is often accompanied by weird tics and hand gestures, manic stereotypies such as rhythmic head-nodding toward a wall, or Obsessive Compulsive Orientation Syndrome' (OCOS: facing towards the east five times a day).

Gerin Oil in strong doses is hallucinogenic. Hardcore mainliners may hear voices in the head, or experience visual illusions which seem to the sufferers so real that they often succeed in persuading others of their reality. An individual who convincingly reports high-grade hallucinations may be venerated, and even followed as some kind of leader, by others who regard themselves as less fortunate. Such follower-pathology can long post-date the original leader's death, and may expand into bizarre psychedelia such as the cannibalistic fantasy of 'drinking the blood and eating the flesh' of the leader.

Chronic abuse of Geriniol can lead to 'bad trips', in which the user suffers terrifying delusions, including fears of being tortured, not in the real world but in a postmortem fantasy world. Bad trips of this kind are bound up with a morbid punishment-lore which is as characteristic of this drug as the obsessive fear of sexuality already noted. The punishment-culture fostered by Gerin Oil ranges from 'smack' through 'lash' to getting 'stoned' (especially adulteresses and rape victims), and 'demanifestation' (amputation of one hand), up to the sinister fantasy of allo-punishment or 'cross-topping', the execution of one individual for the sins of others.

You might think that such a potentially dangerous and addictive drug would head the list of proscribed intoxicants, with exemplary sentences handed out for pushing it. But no, it is readily obtainable anywhere in the world and you don't even need a prescription. Professional traffickers are numerous, and organized in hierarchical cartels, openly trading on street corners and in purpose-made buildings. Some of these cartels are adept at fleecing poor people desperate to feed their habit. 'Godfathers' occupy influential positions in high places, and they have the ear of Royalty, of Presidents and Prime Ministers. Governments don't just turn a blind eye to the trade, they grant it tax-exempt status. Worse, they subsidize schools founded with the specific intention of getting children hooked.

bali man
I was prompted to write this article by the smiling face of a happy man in Bali. He was ecstatically greeting his death sentence for the brutal murder of large numbers of innocent holidaymakers whom he had never met, and against whom he bore no personal grudge. Some people in the court were shocked at his lack of remorse. Far from remorse, his response was one of obvious exhilaration. He punched the air, delirious with joy that he was to be 'martyred', to use the jargon of his group of abusers. Make no mistake about it, that beatific smile, looking forward with unalloyed pleasure to the firing squad, is the smile of a junkie. Here we have the archetypal mainliner, doped up with hard, unrefined, unadulterated, high-octane Gerin Oil.

Whatever your view of the vengeance and deterrence theories of capital punishment, it should be obvious that this case is special. Martyrdom is a strange revenge against those who crave it, and, far from deterring, it always recruits more martyrs than it kills. The important point is that the problem would not arise in the first place if children were protected from getting hooked on a drug with such a bad prognosis for their adult minds.
Posted: Monday, May 15, 2006 | Permalink

Comments 1 - 50 of 66 |

Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers

1. Comment #17573 by carlptr on January 14, 2007 at 9:29 pm

Richard Dawkins intellectual stature and literary brilliance are closely matched by his courage.
My humble suggestion is that professor Dawkins could have gone a little further. The fact is, Gerin Oil cartels have the governments in their pockets. One of the main side effects from Gerin Oil addiction is a high and very sad level of gullibility for the addicted consumer, not to mention blindness to any basic attempts at mental manipulation. This is extremely convenient for all the politicians on any side of the spectrum and this is why they so promptly line up with the cartels and promote the addiction.
The current crescendo of terrorism caused by fatal cases of addiction to this drug is causing an interesting dilemma for the politicians in the "Western Democracies". They have no tools to deal with this problem because they can't denounce its real cause, which is an extreme level of Gerin Oil intoxication, overdose really. They are simply shuffling around the issue and stating that "our oil is good, their oil is bad" but unfortunately for the ones killing themselves and the ones being killed this will not take us anywhere. The problem is being exacerbated by a reaction leading to higher levels of consumption of particular, sometimes disguised, brands of the oil in the west. In the past few thousand years this always ended up in vast amounts of bloodshed from the innocent but gullible population to strengthen the position of one cartel or the other.
There is hope however, so long as a few Richard Dawkins's come along every now and then.

Other Comments by carlptr

2. Comment #226689 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 2:02 pm

Francis Crick called. He wants his hallucinogens back.

---

As an atheist, I honestly used to think Atheism wasn't a religion. I guess you are out to prove me wrong, Dawkins.

This entire debate you create about all the bad things religion has caused completely ignores social factors that lead to religious penetration. Whatever religion we're talking about, all of them have their differences. Some Muslims live in societies where drinking alcohol is tolerated some don't. Some Christians drink wine, others don't. Some Jews abstain from Pork, others don't.

Cultural influence is part of why religion isn't static in its beliefs, why it morphs and changes with the time period it exists in.

While religion can often fan the flames of horrible actions such as the devastating attacks in America on September 11th, 2001, we cannot forget that science can be its own enemy.

Adorno once said the Holocaust was the inevitable result of the enlightenment. People, realizing some folks had "better" genetics than others, wanted to destroy the "bad" genetics completely. With this horribly uninformed view of genetics, as well as cultural influence of general antisemitism already alive in Germany, the Nazi party rose to power.

Seriously, I'm not religious or a religious apologist, but to just blame everything on religion, as if that's the one thing making people stupid or evil, is a straw man so big that it makes Burning Man feel insecure about body image.

---

So, do us all a favor, Dawkins. Write a science book. Or, if you really want to keep writing philosophy, sit down and read some it, please. I know you tore apart Lacan and Deleuze & Guattari around 10 years ago without really trying to understand what they were trying to say.

"But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don't know anything about."

That was you on Lacan. Sure sounds a lot like:

"I don't know about all this fancy science, but the Bible has all the answers I need, so I don't need to investigate this demonology further."

Point being: if you don't even try to understand a differing way of thought, then you're being just as ignorant and reactionary to new ideas as many religious people. You reduce these complex systems into simplistic systems. If someone did that to biology, you'd throw a shit fit, and with good reason.

Either read some philosophy and really try to understand it or stop writing non-scientific articles bitching about non-scientific things, okay?

Thanks, from everybody.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

3. Comment #226692 by Sciros on August 8, 2008 at 2:09 pm

avatarWTF hey buddy the bridge called it needs its troll back.

EDIT: this troll was also a necropost. Ignore and move on...

Other Comments by Sciros

4. Comment #226698 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 2:14 pm

So, I guess disagreeing with someone elses opinion and trying to back that up with facts and ideas is now being a troll?

Who knew?

You've got some rabid fans there, Dawk' old boy.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

5. Comment #226703 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:20 pm

avatardeadaluspark-

You are going to be thought of as a troll unless you actually post sensible arguments. So far you have just thrown out what seem like a series of random rants.

I am afraid using the good old straw man of claiming that Dawkins or anyone is blaming religion for everything does not illustrate clear thinking.

Dawkins has a specific agenda. He is interested in the public understanding of science, indeed passionate about it, it seems. We have a major battle with religion attempting to corrupt and stifle science. His attacks on religion are well-founded.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

6. Comment #226704 by Sciros on August 8, 2008 at 2:23 pm

avatarYou didn't even read the article, dumbass. You joined just to post about some bullshit strawman that is wholly off-topic to boot. Either contribute something meaningful or shove off, there's no shortage of idiot trolls to replace you.

EDIT: steve beat me to it

Other Comments by Sciros

7. Comment #226716 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 2:33 pm

I feel like Michael Douglas in Falling Down.

"I'm just DISAGREEING with you!"

If Dawkins is passionate about the public understanding of science I am passionate about the public understanding of philosophy.

I'm not really sure why my ideas came off as "random rants." The first half was meant to stipulate Adorno's very true statement that the enlightenment, a period of great scientific and philosophical upheaval, led us to realize that humans can use science for evil just as well as they can use religion.

Humans are not rational beings, while we often try to consider ourselves as such. On one hand, religion has caused all sorts of wars. On the other hand, historically speaking, religion gave us our first institutions of learning in recorded history. So, while I agree with much of the bluster Dawkins provides against religion muddying up science, I often think he goes from being "reasonable" to just kind of being a jerk.

The second half of the post was referencing an article Dawkins wrote about ten years ago about certain French Philosophers who he thought were crap because they used "psuedo-scientific" ideas. I was referencing it because when you look at what he wrote in context, he never even really tried to find out what their ideas were really about. Yes, their work is serpentine and often confusing, but it can also be amazingly brilliant work if you suffer through thinking about thought. No, philosophy isn't scientific, in fact, the authors who he referred to mostly work with the transcience of thought. My point being, you can't bitch and moan about other people not listening to your own ideas when you don't listen to ideas that could positively influence you (Specifically, Deleuze & Guattari have a lot to say that could have easily influenced the modern idea of the "meme.").

So, there. I hope my "random rants" make a little bit more sense now. Hopefully when I return I won't still feel so much like Michael Douglas.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

8. Comment #226717 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 2:34 pm

@sciros

Actually, I read TWO articles.

http://www.physics.nyu.edu/faculty/sokal/dawkins.html

Thats the second one i refer to in my post.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

9. Comment #226720 by AllanW on August 8, 2008 at 2:39 pm

avatardeadaluspark; you spent many electronic letters saying nothing. Make a point, please. Do you resent Dawkins' fame? His scientific credentials? His influence? His money? Do you actually disagree with him (it's not clear from your rant)? Do you have anything substantive to offer as a critique of his article here? Or are you just another 'I'm an atheist but he really is shrill' kind of troll? Please let us know because I agree with the only point I could fathom from your first post which is that it can be useful to consider someone elses point of view sometimes.

Other Comments by AllanW

10. Comment #226723 by Sciros on August 8, 2008 at 2:41 pm

avatar
... realize that humans can use science for evil just as well as they can use religion

If you ask the question "which of those two, science and religion, encourages evil as we see it?" the answer will be "only religion."

The philosophy bit is completely off-topic and pretty pointless. If Richard didn't buy into some "good" ideas because they were obscured from him by what he saw as a lot of rubbish, that's honestly the philosophers' problem and no-one else's. If every good idea Richard had were also buried under a lot of crap such as "thinking about thought" or whatever, you might have something to discuss but as it stands this is all hardly worth "ranting" over.

Other Comments by Sciros

11. Comment #226727 by AllanW on August 8, 2008 at 2:45 pm

avatarMany thanks for your last post; you make a lot more sense in it. So you don't actually disagree with his points just the extent to which he espouses them, do I have that right?

As for the post-modernists (whether French or not) I'm on the side that thinks that there is absolutely no value in their 'serpentine and confusing' thoughts despite repeated attempts to discern any. They are fake in virtually every respect. Worthless. Inconsequential.

Are you related to them in any way? It might make your obvious feelings of hurt more understandable to me if you were.

Other Comments by AllanW

12. Comment #226728 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

avatarComment #226716 by deadaluspark

Adorno's very true statement that the enlightenment, a period of great scientific and philosophical upheaval, led us realize that humans can use science for evil just as well as they can use religion.


And that point of that is what, exactly?

Yes, their work is serpentine and often confusing, but it can also be amazingly brilliant work if you suffer through thinking about thought.


I suspect you may be missing the point of what Dawkins is saying. I am no expert in philosophy, being merely an enthusiastic amateur, but what the philosophy I have read can be difficult, but clearly written and with appropriate metaphors. The criticism of Deleuze and others by scientists (such as Sokal and Bricmont) is that he abuses science and mathematics by using terms in arbitrary ways. It may be fashionable in some philosophical circles, but it is sloppy and is a real barrier to acceptance of views.

I have seen scientists abuse philosophy (and it is embarrassing to see). It should be equally embarrassing to see philosophers abuse science. It was entirely appropriate for Dawkins to complain about this.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

13. Comment #226729 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 2:46 pm

"If you ask the question "which of those two, science and religion, encourages evil as we see it?" the answer will be "only religion.""

Been to Communist China lately, man? Last I checked, technology was doing a great job of creating the most oppressive government regime on the planet.

So, you may want to backtrack on that one a little bit.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

14. Comment #226732 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 2:50 pm

avatarComment #226729 by deadaluspark

Where in the practice and methodology of science is there any ethical position that encourages evil?

Other Comments by Steve Zara

15. Comment #226733 by Sciros on August 8, 2008 at 2:51 pm

avatarOhh, so it's SCIENCE's fault that non-theocratic oppressive regimes are oppressive. You're a moron.

Allow me to borrow a quote from the left-hand side of this website:
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"

Steven Weinberg

You can start from there.

Other Comments by Sciros

16. Comment #226740 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 3:02 pm

Actually, no its not sciences fault. Its HUMANITIES fault.

Science and Religion aren't inherently evil themselves. They can both be used for a hell of a lot of evil. They become evil from humans use of them.

Basically my point is: I am fairly sure humans are generally evil/stupid, by nature. If this is the case, bitching about one or the other being wrong isn't helping anything.

Also, Steven Weinberg obviously has very black and white views considering "good" and "evil," which makes the argument problematic since those concepts are merely vague ideas created by humans in the first place. What is really good and really evil? Can't a good person do a little evil without it involving religion? Can't an evil person do a little good without it involving science?

Other Comments by deadaluspark

17. Comment #226741 by JAMCAM87 on August 8, 2008 at 3:06 pm

avatarGerin Oil sounds like Geraniol which is an unsaturated alcohol used in flavourings.

Other Comments by JAMCAM87

18. Comment #226744 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:09 pm

avatarComment #226740 by deadaluspark

Basically my point is: I am fairly sure humans are generally evil/stupid, by nature. If this is the case, bitching about one or the other being wrong isn't helping anything.


There is a profound difference between science and religion. Science works through scepticism. It does not privilege the personal viewpoint. Religion by its very nature encourages individuals to consider themselves to be superior (such as to have the ability to perceive the supernatural) and panders to prejudices (personal feelings are said to have come from, and agree with, the Creator), and that pandering is actively encouraged by most societies. If someone religious feels that homosexuality is wrong, that is considered acceptable simply because it is a religious view.

Religion is thinking without a seat belt. Just because most get away with it, it does not mean it isn't a fundamentally bad idea.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

19. Comment #226747 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 3:13 pm

"Are you related to them in any way? It might make your obvious feelings of hurt more understandable to me if you were. "

Oh, its quite all right, I mostly appreciate you willing to be able to see my point without flaming me, thank you.

I understand they're not for everyone, but on a personal level, I thought "A Thousand Plateaus" was just a book ABOUT memes, long before the idea was ever espoused by Dawkins. It's much more in depth of how memes work and are changed in thought. It's definitely psuedo-science, but I can't personally think of a way to actually scientifically observe the things they are discussing, unless you hooked D&G up to a brain scanner while they wrote that book so you could consider what kind of brain activity they were having while being involved in their "plateaus of thought."

I generally think of what they do is "creating tools for critical thinking." I don't think they are the heroes of philosophy or anything, and they have ideas I disagree with, just like Dawkins.

I mean, I'm a big Dawkins fan here, I've loved and read him for years, I just personally tire of people acting like science is the only thing worth studying.

After World War 2 we had the "Disillusionment" period, which came from being part of a modern technology driven society that we thought was good and right. After seeing the horrors of that war, Humanity had to come to grips with its own evils, whether they bred from religion, technology, or apathy.

While science is of utmost importance for technological development, we still need thought development. We still need critical thinking. We need people willing to challenge old ideas and ways of doing things. Just because we are men of science does not make us not animals. We are still deeply tied to our emotions and natural instincts, unfortunately.

I personally think philosophy better helps us understand our own ways of thought and allows us to change thought and direction.

---

Shit, gotta go to work. Thanks for the lively discussion, all.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

20. Comment #226749 by JHJEFFERY on August 8, 2008 at 3:14 pm

dead:

The problem of postmodernism (a philophy in search of an idea), is that it wants to creat categorical imperatives (there is no ultimate truth) to contend that there are no categorical imperatives. I have never heard a postmodernist admit it, but I am convinced that they took hostage the language of Einsteinian relativism and made it into a philosopy (Einstein warned against it).

Postmodernists lack the sublety of mind to understand that, whether there is an ultimate truth does not inform on the question of whether some things approach truth more closely than others.

Foucault, Leotard and the others simply lacked the ability to discriminate between those things which might be truer than others and lumped them all together into some sort of dark matter.

Foucault invented the concept of "power relations", which is after one wades through the verbosity, the idea that between and among people and all entities, there is a power continuum that varies with location, wealth, size, desire, and other factors. He discovered this sometime in his thirties (memory only here). Most people get it by the time they are six. Foucault had a nice vocabulary (and used it to befuddle instead of illuminate) but understood almost nothing. Perhaps that's why he died of aids after engaging in years of sadomasochist behavior.

BTW: Technology has nothing to do with Chinese oppression--it's been going on for thousands of years.

Cheers

Other Comments by JHJEFFERY

21. Comment #226753 by J Mac on August 8, 2008 at 3:25 pm

avatarThese defenses of religions saying "not only bad things come from religion" is just foolish. Especially in response to this article. The main thrust of the article was not that "oilers" do BAD things, but that they are robbed of their intellect and their critical thinking is hindered.

Even IF a religion had nothing but good effects I would want nothing to do with it (Some atheists may disagree here, but this is my view). Surrendering our rationality to any dogma is extremely dangerous in the long run.

This is why I am quite frustrated with the recent surge of "atheist" Buddhists...

As with other drugs, refined Gerin Oil in low doses is largely harmless, and can serve as a lubricant on social occasions such as marriages, funerals, and state ceremonies. Experts differ over whether such social tripping, though harmless in itself, is a risk factor for upgrading to harder and more addictive forms of the drug.


Well said, "low dose" Gerin Oil or "moderate" religions including Buddhism may not be harmful in themselves, but they are a gateway drug.

I don't reject religion because it causes wars and terrorism, though these are worthwhile reasons. I reject religion because all forms of faith are a detriment to scientific reasoning and critical thinking.

So while you may keep using the No True Scotsman defense, claiming that not all religions are bad, you are missing the point. Any surrendering of ones intellect is inherently dangerous, whether or not it leads to genocide.

Other Comments by J Mac

22. Comment #226755 by Steve Zara on August 8, 2008 at 3:37 pm

avatar
Well said, "low dose" Gerin Oil or "moderate" religions including Buddhism may not be harmful in themselves, but they are a gateway drug.


I don't really agree. The real problem with religion is dogma and faith. There are types of Buddhism which encourage scepticism. I think that is healthy.

Other Comments by Steve Zara

23. Comment #226756 by mordacious1 on August 8, 2008 at 3:40 pm

avatarWow, back in 2007, a thread could end with one post. How things have changed in a year.

Other Comments by mordacious1

24. Comment #226757 by mordacious1 on August 8, 2008 at 3:43 pm

avatartwp

Get over here with your tire ir..er cricket bat.

Other Comments by mordacious1

25. Comment #226782 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 4:48 pm

avatardead

While science is of utmost importance for technological development, we still need thought development. We still need critical thinking.


If you think science is only the servant of technology and that somehow you don't need critical thinking to do science you clear have no clue what you are talking about,

On the other hand, I see very little thinking, critical or otherwise, emanating from those Pomo writers you seem to be so fond of. It is all unargued assertions mixed with incomprehensible psycho-babels dressed up in polysllable words, it is a collage of words and sound, it may be an interesring art form for the aficionados , but it has absolutely nothing to do with critical thinking.

Other Comments by Bonzai

26. Comment #226783 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm

"Foucault invented the concept of "power relations", which is after one wades through the verbosity, the idea that between and among people and all entities, there is a power continuum that varies with location, wealth, size, desire, and other factors. He discovered this sometime in his thirties (memory only here). Most people get it by the time they are six. Foucault had a nice vocabulary (and used it to befuddle instead of illuminate) but understood almost nothing. Perhaps that's why he died of aids after engaging in years of sadomasochist behavior."

While I am glad you are putting your opinion forward how you feel about Foucault, I think perhaps you could refrain from Ad Hominem attacks to prove your point.

Seriously: "Perhaps that's why he died of aids after engaging in years of sadomasochist behavior."

Do you not realize how close that kind of thinking is to many Christian viewpoints? Judging someone for what they did in their life, as though it is proof positive of how worthwhile/worthless their existence was.

Which brings back my points about the Englightenment. It was about realizing how Fascist we can all really be as individuals, without even realizing it. Writing an intellectual off like that just because you disagree with him is tantamount to how many Religious people write off the tenets of science.

I am merely stating that cannot let ourselves be corrupted by our own beliefs and ideologies to the point that our "non-belief" becomes so vehement that we wave our copies of "The God Delusion" in the air acting like its infallible, just like many religious people do with their Bibles/Korans/Bhagadavita/What-have-you.

Nothing is infallible, not science or human thought. We must be able to accept competing ideas for what they are. We don't have to agree with them, but calling names and acting like they are stupid for considering things in a different way is more than childish.

While you may disagree with my sources for disagreeing with Dawkins, please do not act as though their thought is foolish and useless lest you expect someone to do the same with your lifes worth.

Thanks for the consideration.

Other Comments by deadaluspark

27. Comment #226788 by thewhitepearl on August 8, 2008 at 5:01 pm

avatarI just received a Bat Signal??

deadaluspark

[WHACKSMACK-WHOMP-BANG-CRUSH-WHACKSMACK-BOOSH-THUDTHUD-WHACK]

And THATS just from reading the first few sentences of your first post. When my headache goes away (really I do have one, hence the delay)I shall return to address what I am sure is the biggest plop of bullshit we've had in awhile.

Other Comments by thewhitepearl

28. Comment #226790 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:04 pm

avatardead

I am merely stating that cannot let ourselves be corrupted by our own beliefs and ideologies to the point that our "non-belief" becomes so vehement that we wave our copies of "The God Delusion" in the air acting like its infallible, just like many religious people do with their Bibles/Korans/Bhagadavita/What-have-you.


Who does?

I notice that you have conveniently ignored JHJEFFERY's more substantial points and focused instead on one throw away sentence about Foucault,--which by the way I do think it is in bad taste.

Other Comments by Bonzai

29. Comment #226792 by JHJEFFERY on August 8, 2008 at 5:05 pm

"While I am glad you are putting your opinion forward how you feel about Foucault, I think perhaps you could refrain from Ad Hominem attacks to prove your point."

An ad hominem attack is one directed at the speaker--this was a sin I did not commit. I am sorry you did not understand the thrust of my comment. Foucault, and his brethren whom he often tried to deny, simply lacked connectivity to reality. Foucault spent his life searching for the same truth he wrote did not exist. His own life is a clear example of his inability to see life clearly. His writings, are, of course, another. After a master's level class on the subject, I realized there was a synonym for postmodernism--blather.

Your last sentence betrays your prediliction that all thoughts are equal--they are not. Anyone can criticize my thoughts at any time and I will listen--and I will critcize theirs (and yours), and this is how it should be--this is the free exchange of ideas that the postmodernists would shut down, prefering political correctness to truth (ask Larry Brown). You may do so if you wish (and you will be wrong) but I will not, so don't even ask.

Ciao

JHJ

Other Comments by JHJEFFERY

30. Comment #226795 by Bonzai on August 8, 2008 at 5:13 pm

avatardead,

"But a philosopher who is caught equating the erectile organ to the square root of minus one has, for my money, blown his credentials when it comes to things that I don't know anything about."

That was you on Lacan. Sure sounds a lot like:

"I don't know about all this fancy science, but the Bible has all the answers I need, so I don't need to investigate this demonology further."


In order for the analogy to hold you need to show that there is indeed some similarities between "fancy science" and Lacan's writing. So without us making uneducated guesses and thus making fools of ourselves before sophisticated people maybe you can kindly explain to us what profound truth is revealed by equating the square root of -1 to an erected penis?

Thanks in advance.

Other Comments by Bonzai

31. Comment #226992 by JHJEFFERY on August 9, 2008 at 6:32 am

So, since I have drawn fire, albeit gently, from the respected Bonzai, I see I should have not let my fingers get so lazy.

The life of Foucault was filled with searching, both personally and professionally, and, like any philosopher (although he was trained in psychology), his personal life overlaps with the professional. Like the Greeks of old, I believe one must live a good life, not merely be able to talk one. Foucault's immersion into darker and darker worlds betrays a lack of judgment and discrimination which, in most, would be irrelevant. It is only when one takes upon himself the mantle of philosopher, undertakes to tell others how to live, that others may question the philosopher's own life. The darkness and disaffection of Fouault is therefore relevant to the inquiry of his philosophical regime.

As to the 'bad taste' of it, I care not a whit. (But I hasten to add that I am certainly not a homophobe, and my comment was not meant as anti-gay. I just think people who like to be tied up, beaten and raped might need a little focus in their own lives, and shouldn't be lecturing others.)

Best,

Jerry

Other Comments by JHJEFFERY

32. Comment #227001 by AllanW on August 9, 2008 at 6:56 am

avatarRe; Comment #226783 by deadaluspark on August 8, 2008 at 4:51 pm
'While you may disagree with my sources for disagreeing with Dawkins, please do not act as though their thought is foolish and useless lest you expect someone to do the same with your lifes worth.'

I tend to agree although this thought doesn't extend far enough for me. The one aluded to by others here is the useful extension of it; to paraphrase, 'By all means try to refrain from knee-jerk, ad hom prejudices and give competing ideas air-time in your mind but aim for an end result, some kind of judgement of value or progression or the process becomes an open-minded circle-jerk of post-modern, relativistic, multicultural pablum'.

So I'll happily take your point if you understand mine above.

Other Comments by AllanW

33. Comment #227005 by Bonzai on August 9, 2008 at 7:01 am

avatarHi Jerrry


The life of Foucault was filled with searching, both personally and professionally, and, like any philosopher (although he was trained in psychology), his personal life overlaps with the professional. Like the Greeks of old, I believe one must live a good life, not merely be able to talk one.


I may be wrong, but I think the central theme of Foucault is "power", if that is the case may S&M be actually an enactment of his philosophy? Again, not claiming any expertise on Foucault, it seems that at some level his philosophy can be summarized as "civilization is one big S&M orgy."

So, if there is any truth in my observation,I think he did exactly what he preached in a sense. But then I may be talking total nonsense.

I am gay, so I was a bit disturbed by your statement about Foucault dying of AIDS, written in a manner as if to say he deserved it. But then I probably misunderstood in light of your explanation.

I do disagree with your take on S&M. Though S&M is not my thing, but I think it is just another kind of sexual expression, I don't think it should be regarded as "sick" or depraved as long as it involves only consenting adults.Sex is a dark and mysterious realm, folks get turned on by all sorts of things that would be considered "shocking" and "perverted" by the Victorians,--say oral sex. The gentlemen and ladies were publicly shocked while privately enchanted,--in thought or in action,-- they then sought absolution from the confession booth on Sundays,

Other Comments by Bonzai

34. Comment #227050 by JHJEFFERY on August 9, 2008 at 8:40 am

Bonzai

"I may be wrong, but I think the central theme of Foucault is "power", if that is the case may S&M be actually an enactment of his philosophy? Again, not claiming any expertise on Foucault, it seems that at some level his philosophy can be summarized as "history and society are one big S&M orgy."

A very interesting thought. Believe it or not, I don't think anyone in my class ever looked at it like that. You are correct that Foucault focused on power, as I mentioned in first post. But once you get past the obviously strained vocabulary, he has nothing of substance to say.

I think if you misunderstood me, it was my doing and not yours. I grew up in a small, southern town where everyone knew being gay (then "queer")was wrong. I grew up with all sorts of prejudices and getting rid of them completely is more difficult than you might think. I am looking at the AIDS comment and wondering why I added it. . . Yet I have a wonderful cousin who suffers from that horrible afffliction. I will dwell on this today.

But certainly I think the S/M comment appropriate. Even though I think DSM IV still defines S/M as deviant, that was not the gist of my comment. I don't care if Foucault did barnyard animals, it is his hubris to which I object. (I was tempted to compare his teaching others with Ted Haggard but I restrained myself. Yet now I find I have done it.)

Foucault never succeeded in grounding himself. He searching did not begin with S/M--the search for meaning was a lifetime obsession. One cannot imagine Epicurus so loosely woven in the grey matter yet opining on the meaning of life. Yet Foucault gleefully preached doctrines that assisted the pms in establishing their fantasy world where all things are equal.

I just reviewed Sam Harris' speech from 2005 at Idea City and find I can add nothing to his ideas on the subject of the relativism of truth. I think that speech and RD's piece on Postmodernism Disrobed pretty much say all there is to say about pm.

Cheers

Jerry

Other Comments by JHJEFFERY

35. Comment #257461 by NigelJCutland on September 30, 2008 at 1:07 pm

It is quite extraordinary that in his article on Geriniol (Opiate of the Masses, Prospect, October 2005), Richard Dawkins makes two mistakes that one would not expect even of a first year science undergraduate.
1.Professor Dawkins describes the bad effects of some Gerin oil, and then jumps to the conclusion that all Gerin oil is bad and should be proscribed. He fails to observe that there is a whole family of Gerin oils available, differing principally in mutations in their molecular composition; moreover some are peddled in a contaminated form. The pure and uncontaminated variety (scientific name Geriniol eurt.x or Geriniol Ichthus)) is entirely beneficial and there is strong evidence that human beings are designed to function to their maximum potential only if this is part of their daily intake. On the other hand, other varieties of Gerin oil, especially if badly contaminated, can indeed have undesirable effects as described by Dawkins. There is, moreover, one variety that is advertised as a non-geriniol harmless alternative to Geriniol eurt.x , taken by some who take a stand against the use of Gerin oil. Scientific analysis shows however that this is a member of the family of Gerin oils (scientific name Geriniol ath.e), having the fundamental property in common with all other varieties, that partakers are led to beliefs that go beyond pure reason.*
2.Professor Dawkins' second mistake is to present only the evidence that supports his conclusion about Gerin oil, and to suppress the evidence to show that, especially in its pure form, it has hugely beneficial effects. He is able to concede only that it can serve as a social lubricant for marriages, funerals and ceremonies of state. The fact is that Geriniol eurt.x has been shown to have the following effects:
a.Transformation of lives, curing users of their egocentricity and anti-social behaviour, with consequent benefits in family life, the workplace, and in society generally; quantitative evidence of the potent effect of Geriniol eurt.x in this respect is overwhelming.
b.The stimulus of Geriniol eurt.x motivated many of those who have influenced the world profoundly for good: William Wilberforce, Elizabeth Fry, Florence Nightingale, Mother Teresa, William Booth, Lord Shaftsbury, Dr. Barnardo, John Wesley to name but a few. Their achievements are taken for granted and the role of Geriniol eurt.x in giving them vision and stamina is often underestimated.
c.Many of the founders of modern science were under the influence of Geriniol eurt.x - Copernicus, Kepler, Galileo, Newton. They freely admitted that their science was born of the belief (not a delusion, since it has been born out by the evidence) derived from taking Geriniol eurt.x, that the universe is rational and possible to investigate because of its origins. 90% of the foundation members of the Royal Society of London were committed users of Geriniol eurt.x as were the five most eminent British scientists of the 19th century - Davy, Faraday, Joule, Kelvin and Clerk-Maxwell. Scientists today stand on their shoulders, and there are many who are fellow Gerin eurt.x oil-heads.
d.In the arts Geriniol eurt.x has provided inspiration for much of the greatest music and fine art; in education many of the earliest schools and Universities (including Professor Dawkins' own New College, Oxford) were founded by benefactors and visionaries who in his words were "high" on Geriniol eurt.x
e.The rise of Western civilisation was largely due to the influence of Geriniol eurt.x. The widespread partaking of Geriniol eurt.x was responsible for the enculturisation of the moral framework that forms the basis of our political, legal, educational and social welfare systems. Across the pond, the majority of the authors of the American Constitution were consciously under the influence of Geriniol eurt.x as they hammered it out.
Conversely, the current decline of Western civilisation can be traced to both the introduction of cheaper varieties of mutated or contaminated Gerin Oil (whose large scale effects we are beginning to see) as well as the widespread partaking of impotent alternatives such as Geriniol ath.e, which lack the effective components of Geriniol eurt.x. This suggests that it is hugely beneficial for children to be introduced to the pure form of Geriniol eurt.x (as well as being protected from dangerous and adulterated mutations).


*See the article Logic & Faith available on request from the author.

Other Comments by NigelJCutland

36. Comment #258252 by sane1 on October 1, 2008 at 5:01 pm

avataroh - an anagram for religion: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerin_oil

Wonderful: http://www.skeptic.com/eskeptic/08-10-01images/colley_hate_mail.pdf

NIGEL: Clever. I appreciate your effort. Unfortunatly, you are all wrong. Too bad you wasted your time.

Other Comments by sane1

37. Comment #302081 by prolibertas on December 16, 2008 at 12:50 pm

'Been to Communist China lately, man? Last I checked, technology was doing a great job of creating the most oppressive government regime on the planet'.

Science and technology are TOOLS, not MOTIVATORS. Motivators come from ideology and such, e.g. in the case of China, it's Communism. Take away their Communist dogma, and the technology wouldn't still be compelling them oppress their people just of its own accord.

Blaming science/technology is like blaming a knife for stabbing someone, sending it to court and getting it put in its own little knife-jail. Religion, however, is a motivator, and so can be held accountable for whatever good or bad it does.

Other Comments by prolibertas

38. Comment #302086 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 1:15 pm

avatarComment #226729 by deadaluspark
About the technology in China. It's lifted whole populations out of poverty too.
Regarding the human rights - wife is Chinese and hadn't noticed a large difference between China and New Zealand in terms of actual living. Obviously there are differences - one doesn't get arrested for writing a newspaper article exposing official corruption (though one can get an MP arrested for leaking information in the UK and the US does have its Homeland Security...), but in normal everyday living we are all the same.
Anyway, I always pegged Burma as the most oppressive regime. And Western companies don't shy away from doing business with them...

Other Comments by Goldy

39. Comment #302092 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 1:24 pm

avatarHehehehehe! And talking of China
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7785248.stm
That didn't last long, did it? I hear Australia is thinking of doing the same ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

40. Comment #302095 by Tezcatlipoca on December 16, 2008 at 1:37 pm

avatarJust printed the article and sent it around the office. This should be exciting. Much like di-hydrogen oxide...

Other Comments by Tezcatlipoca

41. Comment #302096 by Brian English on December 16, 2008 at 1:52 pm

avatarTez, did you know that dihydrous oxide is responsible for most drownings each year? It's a terrible substance.

Other Comments by Brian English

42. Comment #302098 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 1:55 pm

avatarDihydrogen oxide is a terrible thing! I see the addicts here in the Uni, all with their "Pump" bottles, taking sips every 5 seconds. I tell you, solvent abuse of the worst kind!

Other Comments by Goldy

43. Comment #302103 by Brian English on December 16, 2008 at 2:05 pm

avatarIt is the universal solvent Goldy. No one is immune to it's lure.

Other Comments by Brian English

44. Comment #302104 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 2:09 pm

avatarLuckily I have found an effective additive to it that renders it's dangers ineffective. Add alcohol at anything between 5 and 50% to it and it's OK to drink.

Other Comments by Goldy

45. Comment #302107 by Brian English on December 16, 2008 at 2:17 pm

avatarThat is a serendipitous discovery Goldy. I shall investigate the properties of said mix in the near future. Should I mix it with methanol or ethanol?

Other Comments by Brian English

46. Comment #302108 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 2:18 pm

avatarI'd stick to ethanol. Wood alcohol doesn't taste too good and makes your orange juice curdle somewhat...

Other Comments by Goldy

47. Comment #302110 by Brian English on December 16, 2008 at 2:20 pm

avatarIt also causes blindness I've been lead to believe.

Other Comments by Brian English

48. Comment #302112 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 2:21 pm

avatarAnd madness....though in some cases that's hard to diagnose ;-)

Other Comments by Goldy

49. Comment #302113 by decius on December 16, 2008 at 2:25 pm

avatarComment #302107 by Brian English

Brian, be careful, some kid may not get the joke, try and die.

Methanol is easily available and highly poisonous.

Other Comments by decius

50. Comment #302114 by Goldy on December 16, 2008 at 2:28 pm

avatarIndeed. Remember kids, we are fully trained professionals. Don't try this at home.
Ethanol and methanol should only be bought with parental permission and adult supervision is required at all times.

Other Comments by Goldy
Reload Comments | Back to Top

More Comments: 1 2 | Next | Last

Comment Entry: Please Login

Register a new account

Username:

Password: