What is up with the miracle water they sell on late-night tv? I mean, dude. Seriously. But it got me to thinking - scratching time around my chin - about people and how we are. Theoretically, I could sit here the rest of my life and spout off about this topic, but for the sake of actually be able to make this post, I'm gonna attempt an abridged stream-of-consiousness.
So here's the thing that got me going: the testimonials. I mean, here are these people who are feverishly proclaiming how this stuff changed their lives: gave them fortune/got them out of debt, healed uncurable diseases, whatever. Is it bullshit? Sure, they could be actors, but something about them speaks to a genuineness that you just can't fake. And if that's the case, they're real people who actually believe that this miracle water changed their lives.
So did it? Did it really changes their lives and fix their problems? If it weren't true (at least temporarily), it sure doesn't seem like they'd so passionately and so readily talk about all the great fortune that has happened to them since they got their mail-order miracle water.
It made me laugh at first in disbelief, then I had to remind myself that I am an educated and logical person, so the way I think is different than the way a lot of people think. So does that really make my way of thinking right or better? Why is logic or a more developed ability to reason superior to being emotional or reactionary?
The thing that got me at first about the miracle water pitch is how much it reminded me of tele-evangelists. I saw an America Undercover documentary once that suggested that, quite simply, the success of tele-evangelism is a result of mass hypnosis much in the same vein as Hitler used. Now before anyone gets their panties in a bunch, all I'm comparing here is application of mass hypnosis.
There are supposedly three types of people. Those who are highly susceptible to the power of suggestion, those moderate folks who are doubtful but can be swayed once they have enough evidence to convince them, and finally, those who are least resistant to suggestibility. I tend to think that you could even say these three categories are akin to progressive levels of the emotional and logical.
So in the case of tele-evangalists or the miracle water pitch, they capture the first group easily and then gain the confidence of the second group by using the first group to make their case. So when you've got someone testifying to the effects of the miracle water or you see a group of a hundred people falling over when Benny Hinn waves his hands, it allays the doubt in the moderate minds of the second group and converts them to believers.
But here's the thing: what happens when things really do change for people? Is that bullshit? How else could you explain healing or good fortune? Well, for starters, the human mind is powerful, so it actually is possible for someone who hasn't walked in years to get up and take steps when their mind convinces them that they are cured. It's a strange phenomenon indeed and usually short-lived, however. Check in on them a week later and they're back confined to the wheelchair. But, for a moment, they actually did walk across the stage, or at least made those three steps.
I've often thought about religion much in the same way. That an inclination to believe in something that can't be grasped or measured comes from a place of emotional need. People have so much faith and believe so adamanantly that there is a higher power taking care of them. And often they actually do reap positive results. They see their lives change for the better, and they're motivated to modify their own behavior to live a more godly life. And when they don't have positive experiences, they keep on having faith, because well, the lord works in mysterious ways. And for the times when something good does happen, it's the power of the lord providing for them.
I've even thought before that projecting hope and faith outward and towards something greater than one's self - simply directing it away from yourself - alleviates a certain pressure that it's up to you and only you, thereby making people happier and more fulfilled. In a cosmic sense of feeling taken care of, you actually are taken care of, even if you're still doing the work to sustain yourself. But the lord gets the credit, and maybe that's okay. If confidence and faith in a higher power provide people the wherewithal, optimism, and motivation to not give up in life, then what's wrong with that?
I've seen it a lot, actually. It makes me wish sometimes that I could have faith. I don't disrespect it, either. My parents attribute their survival to the power and mercy of Christ.
Holy tangent, batman. I was intending to talk about logic vs. emotion. My point is, is it logical for a bottle of holy water, the touch of a self-proclaimed prophet, or even the grace of a mythical or otherworldly entity to be the answer to our problems? Of course not, because it doesn't make sense. I mean, isn't faith believing in something when there is no proof? But sometimes it does work, even if only in our own minds.
It seems to be a commonly held belief that logic is superior to emotion. But why is that really? Logic is nothing more than a science - a system of knowledge to explain the world and the phenoma of our existance. My main problem with science is that it is only a creation of the human mind. It's how we attempt to explain and comprehend. But, to me, the precision of science is confined to the ability of the human mind to identify patterns based on how the human mind processes information, but does that make it absolute? Sure it does, at least in our own minds. Or in the mind of an atheist. I guess that explains why I'm agnostic.
Of course, our reactions are shaped by our environment: what we think we're supposed to have, what is right or wrong, etc., so it follows that our emotions are a mere product of environment as well, dictating our reactions. However, the root of emotion is not, is it? The fact that we even have the ability to respond emotionally to the world around us is a natural part of us, just as the ability to develop systems of thought about the world is. So why is it that being logical is so much better than being emotional?
I often find myself trying to suppress my emotional self. I mean, who wants to be accused of being emotional? Being emotional has a negative connotation, doesn't it? Being emotional equates to being irrational. But how often do you associate a negative connotion with logic? You don't. And being a woman, I'm much easier to dismiss if I am emotional, because good god damn, I'm certainly not rational if I react from a place of feeling.
The trick is trying to find the balance. I don't want to stifle a natural part of who I am: the emotional part. I want to feel. So how is it that I can honor my emotional self yet still embrace the logic of logic? Well, I'm still not there yet - you know, figuring out the balance. But, dammit, as long as I don't cry over spilt emotion. I mean, if I got kicked in the balls, that'd be okay, because those would be logical tears: a mere manifestion and reaction to the physical pain of it all.
~ the lady love
6 comments:
Going back and re-reading this post today, I wanted to throw this qualifier on the part about religion: I'm talking about when people choose religion and not necessarily being born into a culture of a particular religion.
A lot of this post brought me back to my days in Philosophy of Science class. Good stuff.
I've just been waiting for somebody to post a comment telling me what an idiot I am. :)
Hmm... well "Faith" with a capital "F" is believing in something when there's no proof. With a small "f," it's simply trusting that the evidence you have so far will lead to a logical next step.
While I agree with your balance statement -- people look at logic v. emotion in way to "black/white" a manner -- I do think you sell logic short. The zero and one at the core of logic is "cause and effect." It's the simplest form of logic from which everything else is built. And within our physical world, we've developed a pretty good hold on cause and effect. Except in one area -- people. When people get involved, cause and effect flies out the window.
In a way, when we ask people to be logical, it's almost as if we're asking everyone to play by the same rules for some of the important things that need a sense of predictability. We ask people to be logical in business and in medicine and in service industries -- places where wildcards suck.
Emotion? Sure it comes from the same place as logic. The only reason why people tend to give logic primacy is because it's not as frustrating. Every cause when it comes to emotion has fifty million potential effects. And every effect (this is to you ladies out there) has fifty million possible causes. And from person to person or day to day, your guess is as good as the next person's -- however well you know the person with the emotion.
There are times when emotion serves better than logic. Does affection and caring get you to the hospital more quickly with an injured child? Does anger make you defend a loved one more strenuously when he or she is in danger? Does displaying hurt make a loved one realize how much you care? All of those lean closer to emotional than logical.
But on the flipside, how many illogical things do feelings of loneliness or being spurned or being jealous cause people to do?
You make a lot of good points here. But I don't think I sell logic short in real life, which is what ignited my post. I think I too often sell emotion short, so this stream-of-thought was an exploration of why I give logic more credence than emotion, and as a result, find myself "thinking" rather than "feeling".
"Stream" of thought? Do streams have rapids? Do streams have Kevin Bacon kidnapping Meryl Streep's family on them? This be a river of though if ever there was one, L.L.
:)
Post a Comment