When I watched the now-famous (or infamous) first debate between Obama and Romney I was surprised by the unanimous opinion that Obama lost. I thought Romney benefited by being able to present himself directly to a large audience, without the filter of a largely-hostile media, but I didn't think Obama was inferior to him in terms of facts, policy ideas, etc.
Then in subsequent debates, Obama acted angry, spoke in a louder voice, interrupted Romney and generally was more assertive, and that apparently made him seem smarter, as the polls of TV viewers revealed that Obama had won.
I was struck by how Robert Anton Wilson managed to explain to me what had happened, in his discussion of the Anal-Territorial System in Chapter 18, "Multiple Selves and Information Systems," of Quantum Psychology:
This system makes a feedback loop between muscles, adrenalin, the thalamus of the brain, the anus and the larynx. Swelling the body and using the larynx to howl (muscle-flexing and noise) makes up the usual Domination signal among birds, reptiles, mammals and politicians. Study the speeches of Hitler and Ronald Reagan for further details, or just watch two ducks disputing territory in a pond.
Yep: as every election cycle goes on I'm more and more alienated by about 98% of media-talk about how politics works. It's been obvious to me that far more of what RAW called the "semantic unconscious" works in politics than what most "experts" seem to think.
Your quote from RAW reminded me of RAW quoting Leary about political-talk: if we're gonna talk politics, we'll both understand it better if we both get down on all fours first. It seems to me it's FAR more 2nd-circuit-y anal-territorial. Academics are still resenting papers that hint they are getting a glimpse of this, but they're nowheres near the level of Thick Descriptions found in the collected works of RAW and his influences.
Here's a recent example I read last night, by someone Officially Educated:
I used to write these people and give them titles, page numbers, annotations, etc: Either they never respond or (rarely) they claim they're doing "real" science.
Post a Comment