Dying of Laughter

Star Wars as an allegory of Vatican II.

Here's the part where I had tears in my eyes:

The heroes involved with saving the Church from the Culture of Death, i.e. rescuing Leia from the Death Star, was Paul VI, John Paul II, and the faithful Catholic laity … that is, Obi-Wan Kenobi, Luke Skywalker, and Han Solo. 

The way to destroy of the Culture of Death is, paradoxically, by means of more life … that is, by sex, impregnation … and so forth. At the battle of Yavin, the rebels intend to symbolically do just that … namely (hear me out on this one) … have sex with the Death Star. Oh, man, I’ve really lost it haven’t I? The rebel starfighters attempt to shoot proton torpedos (which vaguely look like sperm) into a small exhaust port (which, I’ll just say it, represents the vaginal opening). Furthermore, the rebel’s ships are called X-Wings and Y-Wings … which are, of course, represent X Chromosomes and Y Chromosomes (i.e. the sex-determining structures of DNA involved in reproduction). Moreover, imperial TIE Fighters, which represent contraception (i.e. TIEing one’s tubes … and later on TIE “Interceptors” which sound like “Contraceptors”), try to destroy them to prevent this symbolic act of impregnation.

While Luke is narrowing in on the target with his targeting computer, Obi-Wan mystically tells him to “let go” and just “use the force,” as the computer is destined to fail. In other words, Obi-Wan is encouraging a natural method for this act rather than an artificial one. Luke obeys him, and it works. This, of course, parallels how Paul VI advocated natural sex as opposed to artificial birth control, and John Paul II followed his predecessor in this. John Paul II thus helped to blow up of the Culture of Death with his … yes, that’s right …Theology of the Body (his pivotal work explaining to the modern mind the correct view one should have with regard to human sexuality).

(H/T Mike Flynn)

QFT

"If you're going to come here and get our food, bedding and clothing, have books and medical supplies for no charge, they need to give back. There's a lot of takers here and they feel entitled." [Emphasis added.]

--Lauren Digioia, member of the OWS Sanitation Comittee, on the vagrants in Zuccotti Park, quoted in the NY Daily News.

(H/T Mike Flynn)

Premises, Premises

So, I've had the idea for this post for a while, but haven't been able to put it in words. I had planned writing a long, rambling, boring post, but I realized it could probably be said better shorter.

Also, it helps that SF author, statistician, amateur philosopher and historian, and all around Cool Guy Michael Flynn has done the bulk of the work for me. Recently, he wrote a piece on the "ladder of inference". You should go read it. No, seriously. Go. I'll wait.

All done? To summarize for those too lazy to read, the ladder of inference is basically the process we mentally apply whenever presented with facts. It goes like this:

1. I observe objectively.
2. I select data from what I observer.
3. I add meaning to what I have selected.
4. I make assumptions based on the meaning I have added.
5. I draw conclusions, which prompt feelings.
6. I adopt beliefs about the world.
7. I take action based on my beliefs and feelings.

Now, there is a loop, called the Reflexive Loop from step 6 to step 2: our beliefs influence what data we select from our observations. This is why two people can be presented with the same set of data and draw completely different conclusions about it. Based on their beliefs, developed from previous experiences, people will notice different things, infer different meanings, and make different assumptions from the same things.

For our purposes, I will refer to these beliefs that influence our observations and actions as "premises". These are not, of course, philosophical premises in the sense of "first principles", since they are based on prior experiences. But, for a given situation, they are the things we assume are a given, and not topics for discussion.

Now, the problem is people tend to assume that their experiences are universal, and internalize their premises to such a point that they assume everyone else shares them. So when two people observe the same data, and come to different conclusions, if they've climbed too high, too fast, on the ladder of inference, they'll be completely at a loss to understand how the other person came to another conclusion.

This is why arguing on the internet is, for the most part, completely futile. Every time you see two people going at it in comboxes, each one talking past the other, it's typically because one (or both) have climbed too high on the ladder. Each one assumes his premises to be true, based on experiences he assumes are universal. And since the premises are usually not the things being discussed, the "conversation" continues apace, with neither party actually hearing or addressing the points made by the other.

Every time you come across a pro-life person lamenting how much pro-choice people hate babies, while the pro-choice person bemoans that pro-lifers hate women, it's because of the ladder. When you see a same-sex marriage advocate calling a traditional marriage advocate a homophobe, while the latter insists that God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman and why-oh-why can't the homosexuals understand this, it's the ladder. And when you see an atheist call all religion irrational while the theist is calling atheists blind, it's the ladder. None of the parties are acknowledging that the other person may have a different starting point for his beliefs because of his different life experiences.

(Note: I'm not saying that neither person is correct, or that both views are true; I'm just saying that someone's reasons for holding a belief are, in the vast majority of circumstances, rational and well-intentioned, no matter how wrong it might be.)

So it's a particularly treasured moment when someone reveals in plain language, right off the gate, what his premises are. It allows one to see why, exactly, that person holds the beliefs that he holds,

This is all a very, very roundabout way of introducing the topic of a document released by the International Planned Parenthood Federation called "Exclaim!: Young People's Guide to 'Sexual Rights'". An old college buddy of mine linked to it on the blog of his psychotherapy practice as an example of the "philosophy and social conditioning that the youth of today experience in our culture."

I found it fascinating because it puts the premises of the the sexually promiscuous culture right out front, plain to see. For instance:

Other newly-discovered rights: the pleasure of eating irrespective of desires for nourishment; the right to breathe without respiration; and the freedom to jump off cliffs without falling.

Simply put, it is a premise of the culture of death that everyone has a right to sex without babies. From here, it is easy to see how you end up with the right to abortion. If you have a right to actions without consequences, when the consequences occur, they are interfering with your rights. It's also easy to see why they think that pro-lifers are "denying a woman her rights".

This is important, because any pro-life argument that fails to address this mentality is doomed to failure. Any argument that starts with the humanity of the unborn is a futile argument. What a fetus is does not matter to a woman's right to "sexual freedom". If stealing candy from African AIDS orphans was necessary for sexual freedom, that would be justified by this premise.

This explains the cognitive dissonance exhibited in other places in the document. For instance, on page 8, IPPF defines all human rights, as universal, inalienable, indivisible, interrelated and interdependent, and impose obligations, then goes on to define inalienable:

INALIENABLE: Everyone is entitled to human rights simply for being human [NB: "for being human". Not "person". This undercuts the "the fetus isn't a person" objection]. Human rights cannot be taken away or given up from anyone, irrespective of their age [So... a 10-week gestational human being cannot have its rights taken away?], gender, ethnicity, race, religion, nationality, sexual orientation, socio-economic status, disability, HIV status or health status.

Then, on page 19, while listing human rights, they state:

"Everyone has the right to life, liberty, and to be free from harm."

There are, of course, implications to these two statements. But the ladder of inference can prevent someone from seeing them.

Interesting Point of the Day/Week/Month

(H/T Mike Flynn)

'"Congressman Weiner departed this morning to seek professional treatment to focus on becoming a better husband and healthier person"
-- Weiner publicist Risa Heller to New York Times last Saturday.

Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi concluded that his behavior required medical intervention. (also in the Times)

There is a strange notion implicit here: heterosexual behavior can be cured! Who knew? But isn't there something dehumanizing about the supposition that homosexuals are helpless victims of their urges while (with professional treatment and medical intervention) heterosexuals can learn to control them?'