Background:
Kathryn Schulz: On Being Wrong 

From About.com - Question: What Is Cognitive Dissonance?

Answer:People tend to seek consistency in their beliefs and perceptions. So what happens when one of our beliefs conflicts with another previously held belief? The term cognitive dissonance is used to describe the feeling of discomfort that results from holding two conflicting beliefs. When there is a discrepancy between beliefs and behaviors, something must change in order to eliminate or reduce the dissonance.

Examples of Cognitive Dissonance Cognitive dissonance can occur in many areas of life, but it is particularly evident in situations where an individual's behavior conflicts with beliefs that are integral to his or her self-identity. For example, consider a situation in which a woman who values financial security is in a relationship with a man who is financially irresponsible.

The conflict:

• It is important for her to be financially secure.
• She is dating a man who is financially unstable.

In order to reduce this dissonance between belief and behavior, she can either leave the relationship or reduce her emphasis on financial security. In the case of the second option, dissonance could be further minimized by emphasizing the positive qualities of her significant other rather than focusing on his perceived flaws.

A more common example of cognitive dissonance occurs in the purchasing decisions we make on a regular basis. Most people want to hold the belief that they make good choices. When a product or item we purchase turns out badly, it conflicts with our previously existing belief about our decision-making abilities.

How to Reduce Cognitive Dissonance: There are three key strategies to reduce or minimize cognitive dissonance:

• Focus on more supportive beliefs that outweigh the dissonant belief or behavior.
• Reduce the importance of the conflicting belief.
• Change the conflicting belief so that it is consistent with other beliefs or behaviors.

Why is Cognitive Dissonance Important?Cognitive dissonance plays a role in many value judgments, decisions and evaluations. Becoming aware of how conflicting beliefs impact the decision-making process is a great way to improve your ability to make faster and more accurate choices.

So, ask yourself... how can you prescribe an actual physical substance for a mental disease that has no biological source? These Psychiatrists are asking that question too...

Note: There is a difference between a psychiatrist and a psychologist. A psychologist has different capabilities for dealing with situations to certain degrees based on understanding and experience. A psychiatrist PRESCRIBES drugs for textbook (or pharma pamphelts) signs of mood swings. Human emotions are now expected to be divorced from events and everyday living realities to such a degree that mood swings can get you some very dangerous drugs that can cause long-term brain damage. Fortunately the brain can repair itself, but there is a limit to a doctors authority and that authority ends at "psychologist in training"... for life.


Understanding why drugs are so popular (from PBS)...

It is tempting to view this pattern as suggesting that the ADHD diagnosis provides teachers with a new technique for regaining control of the classroom in a world where many of the traditional methods of control have been eliminated. Drugs have replaced the reprimand.

But it seems to me that the real problem may be that the concept of compulsory, cookie-cutter education needs rethinking. In spite of the rhetoric in schools of education about the importance of taking into account the individual needs of the children in a classroom, the current system of public education is designed to make that nearly impossible. State curriculum guidelines and requirements, coupled with further requirements from the local community, prevent teachers from making any serious effort to tailor materials and assignments to the differing abilities and dispositions of individual children. Nor is there any mechanism, of the sort one would find in a school-choice-based system of education, for parents to seek out schools tailored to the temperaments and capabilities of their children. Instead, it becomes necessary to find ways of making children able to perform in the environment as they find it. And, in late twentieth-century America, when it is difficult or inconvenient to change the environment, we don't think twice about changing the brain of the person who has to live in it. The rise in consumption of Ritalin is only one manifestation of this cultural practice. Consider Prozac or, in previous decades, Valium.

None of this should be taken to suggest that there are no cases of genuine brain damage or dysfunction that require medical intervention. There have always been diseases of the brain, as of any other organ, and they should be treated as such. But difference does not automatically equal disease. Is changing the child's brain chemistry, by prescribing Ritalin-like drugs, really the most appropriate response to the child who doesn't perform well in the modern school environment? Perhaps it's time we asked ourselves whether the fact that so many children can't learn well in our schools is a reflection on the schools, not the children.Read more


In this case, I can't fathom what the reasoning is:

ARTICLE: Nearly 1 million children in the United States are potentially misdiagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder simply because they are the youngest -- and most immature -- in their kindergarten class, according to new research by a Michigan State University economist.


From Salon: "Anatomy of an Epidemic": The hidden damage of psychiatric drugs...

What about stimulants used to treat ADHD. How effective are they? These stimulants alter behavior in a way that teachers can appreciate. They subdue finger-tapping and disruptive symptoms. But in the 1990s, the National Institute of Mental Health started looking to see if things like Ritalin were benefiting kids with ADHD, and to this day they have no evidence that this drug treatment improves long-term functioning in any domain -- the ADHD symptoms, lower delinquency rates, better performance at school, et cetera. Then the NIMH studied whether these drugs provide a long-term benefit, and they found that after three years, being on medication is actually a marker of deterioration. Some patients’ growth has been stunted, their ADHD symptoms have worsened. William Pelham, from the State University of New York at Buffalo and one of the principal investigators in that study, said, "We need to confess to parents that we’ve found no benefit." None. And we think that with drugs, the benefits should outweigh the risks.What's so risky about Ritalin? For one, a significant percentage -- between 10 and 25 percent -- of kids prescribed medication for ADHD will have a manic episode or psychotic episode and deteriorate in such a way that they’re diagnosed with bipolar disorder. A similar study in 2000 on pediatric bipolar disorder reported that 84 percent of the children treated for bipolar illness -- at the Luci Bini Mood Disorders Clinic in New York -- had been previously exposed to psychiatric medications. The author, Gianni Faeda, wrote, "Strikingly, in fewer than 10 percent of the cases was diagnosis of bipolar disorder considered initially." The reality is that until children were medicated with stimulants and antidepressants, you didn't see juvenile bipolar mania.But if these studies are so groundbreaking, why have they gone unreported in the media? Because the NIMH didn’t announce it. Just as they didn’t announce the 2007 outcome study for schizophrenia patients. In that study, the recovery rate was 40 percent for those off meds, but only 5 percent for those on meds. I checked all the NIMH press releases for 2007, and found no release on this study. I found no announcement of it in any American Psychiatric Association publication or textbook. Not a single newspaper published an account of the study. And that’s because the psychiatric establishment -- the NIMH, the APA, even the National Alliance on Mental Illness, an advocacy organization -- did not put out any press release about it or try to alert the media in any way.Are you suggesting that psychiatrists are beholden to pharmaceutical companies? Not exactly, although most of the leading academic psychiatrists act as consultants, advisors and speakers for them. The problem is that psychiatry, starting in 1980 with the publication of the DSM-III, decided to tell the public that psychiatric disorders were biological ailments, and that its drugs were safe and effective treatments for those ailments. If it suddenly announces to the public that a long-term NIMH-funded study found that the 15-year recovery rate for schizophrenia patients was 40 percent for those off meds and 5 percent for those on meds, then that story begins to fall apart. By not reporting the results, psychiatry maintains the image of its drugs in the public mind, and the value of psychiatrists in today’s therapy marketplace.So do you think psychiatric drugs should be used at all? I think they should be used in a selective, cautious manner. It should be understood that they’re not fixing any chemical imbalances. And honestly, they should be used on a short-term basis. But beyond this, I think we should look at programs that are getting very good results. This is what I love about Keropudas Hospital’s program in Finland. They have 20 years of great results treating newly psychotic patients. They see if patients can get better without the use of meds, and if they can’t, then they try them. It’s a best-use model, not a no-use or anti-med model. It fits with our studies done in the 1970s that found if you use this model, you get better outcomes, and a good number of people get better and go on with their lives.


Miscellaneous Information on the Side Effects of Ritalin...

U.S. DEPT. OF JUSTICE: “Of particular concern is that ADHD literature prepared for public consumption does not address the potential or actual abuse of methylphenidate. Instead, methylphenidate is routinely portrayed as a benign, mild substance that is not associated with abuse or serious side effects. In reality, however, the scientific literature indicates that methylphenidate [Ritalin] shares the same abuse potential as other Schedule II stimulants. Further, case reports document that methylphenidate abuse can lead to tolerance and severe psychological dependence.” Ritalin (methylphenidate) is an amphetamine-like prescription stimulant commonly used to treat Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) in children and adults. Many think Ritalin (methylphenidate) is safe, or mild, because so many children use it. However, the government classifies the psychoactive drug with cocaine and morphine because it is highly addictive. Long-Term Effects of Ritalin: Changes in Brain Development Ongoing research shows early-life use of Ritalin (methylphenidate) has complex effects that endure later into life. A study published in Biological Psychiatry suggests that exposure of Ritalin in youth may later disrupt development of brain cells in the hippocampus, region of the brain critical to memory, spatial navigation, and behaviorial inhibition. Damage can lead to memory problems, disorientation and depression in adulthood. Ritalin is a Schedule II Substance, which means Ritalin has a "high potential for abuse" that "may lead to severe psychological or physical dependence," and the federal government sets limits on the amount of these amphetamine drugs that may be manufactured each year. A review of 20-years of scientific literature on using stimulant medications, including Ritalin, to treat children with ADD and ADHD found a consensus: there is no documented long-term benefit (academic achievement or pro-social behavior) in using psychoactive drugs.Abrupt cessation of stimulant drugs such as Ritalin can cause extreme fatigue and severe, even suicidal, depression in adult patients. The question of whether methylphenidate (Ritalin) impairs creativity in children; Ritalin may have subtle impacts on cognitive and intellectual processes. Both parents and researchers have noticed that children taking Ritalin sometimes answer questions in ways that seem overly compliant or narrow, suggesting the drug might restrict creative thinking. One study found hyperactive children taking Ritalin offered less varied answers to open-ended questions. How much do the “neuro-enhancing” drugs really help? And there's the question of what we mean by “smarter.” The psycho-stimulants help students bear down on their work, but with odd effects. One college student says he spends “too much time researching a paper rather than actually writing it.” Another student looked back at papers he'd written while on Adderall and found them verbose: “I'd produce two pages on something that could be said in a couple of sentences.” Could enhancing one kind of thinking exact a toll on others? All these questions need proper scientific answers, but for now much of the discussion is taking place furtively, among an increasing number of Americans who are performing daily experiments on their own brains (or their children's brains)A few links and videos that seal the case for, abolishing psychiatric drugs being administered to children...

How drug companies' PR tactics skew the presentation of medical research When doctors are deciding which drug to prescribe a patient, the idea behind evidence-based medicine is that they inform their thinking by consulting scientific literature. To a great extent, this means relying on medical journals. The trouble is that pharmaceutical companies, who stand to win or lose large amounts of money depending on the content of journal articles, have taken a firm grip on what gets written about their drugs. That grip was strong way back in 2004, when The Lancet's chief editor Richard Horton lamented that "journals have devolved into information laundering operations for the pharmaceutical industry." It may be even tighter now. Drug companies exert this hold on knowledge through publication planning agencies, an obscure subsection of the pharmaceutical industry that has ballooned in size in recent years, and is now a key lever in the commercial machinery that gets drugs sold. The planning companies are paid to implement high-impact publication strategies for specific drugs. They target the most influential academics to act as authors, draft the articles, and ensure that these include clearly-defined branding messages and appear in the most prestigious journals. Over the past few months I've tried to find out as much about these companies as possible. I wanted to know how big this industry is, exactly how it operates, and how people in the business think about their work. It's a nervous, opaque industry, but I did find answers to some of my questions. There are now at least 250 different companies engaged in the business of planning clinical publications for the pharmaceutical industry, according to the International Society for Medical Publication Professionals, which said it has over 1000 individual members. Many firms are based in the UK and the east coast of the United States in traditional "pharma" centres like Pennsylvania and New Jersey.

How flimsy research gets inferior drugs to market Some of the biggest problems in medicine don't get written about, because they don't concern eye-catching things such as one patient's valiant struggle: they're protected from public scrutiny by a wall of tediousness. Here is one problem that affects millions of people. What if we had rubbish evidence on whether hundreds of common treatments really work, simply because nobody asked the right research question? A paper published this week looks at how much evidence there was for every one of the new drugs approved by the FDA between 2000 and 2010, at the time they were approved. You might think drugs only get on the market if they've been shown to be useful. But "useful" can mean many different things: for FDA approval, for example, you only need trials to show your drug is better than a placebo. That's nice, but with most medical problems, we've already got some kind of treatment. We're not interested in whether your drug is better than nothing. We're interested in whether it's better than the best currently available option. So it turns out that, out of all the 197 new drugs approved in the past decade, only 70% had data to show they were better than other treatments (and that's after you ignore drugs for conditions where there was no current treatment).


Related Blog Post:

Psychiatric Drugs For Dogs? Have Psychiatrists Gone Mad?

1. This is Buddhism...

i.e. Siddhartha (later called 'The Buddha' or 'Enlightened One') just taught a philosophy.

2. Real Buddhists don't worship idols...

 (Image source)
Early "images"/sculptures of the Buddha were empty of him... actual images of Siddhratha as "The Buddha" emerged in later centuries The "throne" is empty because according to Siddhartha "The Self" didn't exist, it was your own creation.

In ancient India a concept developed called ‘Maya’ which means illusion. Since the world is considered impermanent and constantly changing - and you can interpret it in many ways with your mind - it is considered to be an illusion. Thus a common, though ancient, psychological perspective on 'attachment': if you hold on to it as your psychological/mental foundation, you are holding on to something that will dissolve away - eventually - so you are holding on to something which is inherently unstable.

Note: The ancient idea of the world/universe as an 'illusion' has re-emerged in modern physics as the idea of the world and universe as a hologram from string theory (approx 5 minutes into following video)...

Siddhartha (Buddha) agreed with the basic premise of ancient Indian philosophy that the world is an illusion... but he took it one step further, claiming that not only is the world an illusion, so is the ’self’. (Impermanence)

To put it in other words; you are not the person you were a year ago. You know this. You can probably see the ways in which you’ve changed and grown over the last year. You probably see the world in a different way then you did a year ago (or ten years ago). Since you see the world differently, you have a different image of yourself as well. You define yourself differently than you did 10 years ago. What you are capable of, what you can do, who you are, all these definitions tend to change for every person - given enough time. The ancient philosophers noticed that as soon as you imagine a event happening to you - or your role in any situation - you first have to place yourself in it (i.e. you have to imagine your role or character) then you decide what to do or how to feel (this all tends to happen very fast for most events). In other words, every time you imagine yourself or a situation that you are in you are, in a sense, recreating yourself.

Scientific American Mind magazine in an interview with the Nobel laureate Neuroscientist Eric Kandel (click here to read article)

Mind: We tend to think of memory as a kind of library that holds a record of events and facts that can be retrieved as needed. Is this an accurate metaphor? Kandel: No, memory is not like that at all. Human memory reinvents itself all the time. Every time you remember something, you modify it a little bit, in part dependent on the context in which you recall it. That is because the brain’s storage is not as exact as written text. It is always a mixture of many facades of the past event: images, pictures, feelings, words, facts and fiction—a “re-collection” in the true sense.Modern nuero-science agrees with the Buddhist idea of an impermanent self. As Eric Kandel points out that, “Every time you remember something, you modify it a little bit, in part dependent on the context in which you recall it.”

In other words you recreate your image of yourself to fit the new situation. If the self was something permanent and real, then your image of yourself would always remain the same. The fact that you can consciously or unconsciously change your image of yourself and react to situations in a new way - or just create a new you - proves that the self is something you make up as part of living in society. What does this mean? This means that you are not limited to being any particular ’self’ or person. If you feel like you have low self-esteem you can change that self. If you feel like you are not comfortable is social situations, you can change that image too. Any limiting image you have of yourself can be changed as you create your 'self' or how you want to be.

Dalai Lama: Disturbing emotions not only disturb our own state of mind, they also disturb the minds of others. Self-centredness gives rise to fear and insecurity, which in turn creates distrust. This is why having an altruistic attitude brings a great sense of happiness and peace of mind.

The Dalai Lama is supposed to be 'an incarnation of compassion' and is essentially a Buddhist Monk which he has claimed on TV as well. Buddhism & the Dalai Lama are subject to changing thier minds as science advances to fit thier practices in accordance with modern knowledge. I'm pretty sure I can prove through physics that reincarnation doesn't exist. But this is a blog post for another time.

I'm Buddhist NOT Tibetan. I discovered Buddhism (and chi kung) through my studies. The middle path is illustrated in Rumi's Mathnawi which are still books that I learn from and they have stories I use. Rumi's Mathnawi is available in the public domain (i.e. free for anyone to download)...

Rumi's Mathnawi Books 1 & 2

Rumi's Mathnawi Books 3 & 4

Rumi's Mathnawi Books 5 & 6


Note that Rumi teaches what was, essentially, taught by Jesus...

Matthew 36 “Teacher, which is the greatest commandment in the Law?” 37 Jesus replied: “‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.’ 38 This is the first and greatest commandment. 39 And the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ 40 All the Law and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.



For the psychology of balance or 'the middle path' today, you don't have to look much farther than the Dalai Lama who is not only an expert but is also a leader...

“If a problem is fixable, if a situation is such that you can do something about it, then there is no need to worry. If it's not fixable, then there is no help in worrying. There is no benefit in worrying whatsoever.” ― Dalai Lama

“Be empty of worrying. Think of who created thought! Why do you stay in prison When the door is so wide open?” ― Rumi, The Essential Rumi


The Buddhist psychology that the Dalai Lama has expressed thus far has been in line with what I know of psychology studied Carl Jung and meditational techniques so I consider him to be an expert on Buddhist Psychology for our age.

Every culture and religion has its sayings and aphorisms that help thier people related to thier environment. One aspect of these teachings are 'the psychology of balance' or 'the middle path'. A path explained by Siddhartha and was obviously held in very high esteem by the Ancient ascetics and mystics. Though asceticism by it's very nature tends to be polaristic, the meditation of the yogis (and of Siddhartha) was obviously being followed by the early Christian Desert Fathers and some of the Ancient Jewish prophets {or mystics i.e. read the Kabbalah... or don't (if you're Jewish as it's not allowed till you're 40.)}.If you do want to go into the Kabblah you could start with the Zohar (which was probably written by Ibn Arabi. Many of the scholars of those ages could speak in more than one symbolic language).

In Islam there is a Hadith (which I can't find right now) along the lines of 'The Prophet (P.B.U.H) heard Hazrat Umar and Hazrat Abu Bakr reciting the Holy Quran. He asked Umar why he was reciting the Quran so load and he replied to chase away the devil. He then asked Abu Bakr was he was reciting the Holy Quran so softly (forgot the reply)'. Finally, Mohammed (P.B.U.H) said something along the lines of 'do not read the Quran too loud or too softly. Follow the middle path.' {BTW, Mohammed (P.B.U.H) was also well known for spending days meditating in his cave. Meditation was big in the Deserts of the middle east.}

Note: "The Middle Path" means NOT to go to one extreme or another. Not too hot or too cold. Don't get too happy or too angry. Always stay in the middle or roughly in the middle.


Buddhism As A Philosophy...

"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung

Synopsis: Stephen Batchelor defines “Awakening” as awareness of yourself and your surroundings that expands over time with disciplined practice. He rewrites the Buddhist creed of "Life IS Suffering" and the "Cause of suffering IS craving" to "Anguish is to be understood, its origins to be let go of, its cessation to be realized, and the path to be cultivated."

In doing this he changes the perspective of Buddhism from believing that life itself is only about suffering to the idea that it is your mind and its incessant desires are the reason for this suffering. This effectively changes the emphasis from something beyond your control to something within your control. That is the difference between Buddhism as a philosophy and Buddhism as a religion.

One of his students asked Buddha, "Are you the messiah?"
"No", answered Buddha.
"Then are you a healer?"
"No", Buddha replied.
"Then are you a teacher?" the student persisted.
"No, I am not a teacher."
"Then what are you?" asked the student, exasperated.
"I am awake", Buddha replied.

The first written records of Siddhartha (Later called the Buddha) come from Siri Lanka (an island off the coast of South India), several hundred miles from where he taught. Like many other figures of mythology, his teachings were first written down well after his death, about 300 years later, so the reality of his teachings were already well mixed with local religious ideas and mythology.

I like this book because the author separates the meditational philosophy of balance/awakening from the religious beliefs.

This makes the practice of awareness/awakening something that a person of any religious persuasion can learn and apply.

For example, Siddhartha basically taught that,

"Anguish is to be understood, its origins to be let go of, its cessation to be realized, and the path to be cultivated."

Or in other words, the root of anguish is desiring life to something other than it is. Accepting life as it is helps release anguish.

When this becomes, "Life IS Suffering" and the "Cause of suffering IS craving" then the philosophy of cultivating awareness becomes a belief system to be followed. This is where Buddhism becomes a religion.

During Siddhartha's lifetime many people were able to attain awareness and "awakening" but after his death it became something to be strived for and rarely, if ever, achieved. Why has it become so hard to attain awakening? Because turning

Buddhism into a religion made it's tenants "Holy", something well above ordinary reality. So following the teachings as a practice of expanding awareness switched to one of devotion.

The Buddhists explain this lack of "enlightenment" in modern religious Buddhism as an example of the degradation of humanity over time. That is the common excuse for any religious person to explain why the tenets of their religion are NOT followed in society AND can never be followed until 'the end days'. This effectively removes moral responsibility for their actions as a society, as it is not the practitioners fault but life itself that makes enlightenment/awakening/peace impossible.

"An unawakened existence, in which we drift unaware on a surge of habitual impulses, is both ignoble and undignified. Instead of a natural and non-coercive authority, we impose our will on others either through manipulation and intimidation or by appealing to the opinions of those more powerful than ourselves. Authority becomes a question of force rather than integrity."

Living for momentary pleasures makes a person jump from one thing to another rarely finding complete satisfaction in one thing - always looking for the next ‘high’. This high can be social company, excessive exercise, drinking, drugs (both illegal and legal ones) etc. Letting go of craving can free us, even if it is only momentarily. That is why the path must be cultivated.


Experiment

Sit comfortable and consciously relax all the muscles in your body. Begin from your scalp and work your way down to your toes. Now become aware of your breath and as you maintain the focus on your breathing ALSO become aware of the surface you are sitting on, the cloths on your body, your surroundings and even the dome of the sky stretching off to the horizon. Be aware of your breathing and all of the above simultaneously.

If you can do the above only for a few seconds that is fine. You just have experienced 'expanded awareness'. Many people who try this will recognize the awareness they are experiencing from a previous experience. Yes, humans are 'mystical' creatures. Awakening, no matter how much it is avoided, is intrinsically a part of everyone AND is something that ANYONE can learn.

As a global culture we fix ourselves in 'palaces' of what is familiar and secure. We sense there is more to life than trying to gratify our desires and defend ourselves from fear. Yet we don’t know how to get their and this leads to even more activities of distraction.

For Example; We all know that the only certainty in life is death. If we keep the inevitability of death on our minds many things we worry about will no longer matter. Instead we try to avoid that thought at all costs to the point where when we encounter death we are shocked and terrified and say, 'his/her time came early'. There is no such thing. Without the perspective of our death how can we possibly make short or long term decisions that aren’t influenced by drowning ourselves in momentary pleasures?


"Since no one knows the future,
who can tell him what is to come?

No man has power over his spirit to retain it,
so no one has power over the day of his death."

Ecclesiastes 8:7-8:8

Death is always there waiting for you, every day of your life. It is sad, depressing, part of the sorrow of life, but it is not 'early'.

What is life? It is the flash of a firefly in the night. It is the breath of a buffalo in the wintertime. It is the little shadow which runs across the grass and loses itself in the sunset. - Blackfoot

Since death is certain, avoiding it makes you avoid life itself.

Think about it. How do you know that someone is alive? By the simple fact that he/she is not dead. In other words, death defines life. Without death we would not know what life is. So by avoiding the acceptance of death we become escapists of life itself. Chasing momentary pleasures to cloud our awareness and our fears.

If you are constantly making life to be some perfect image to be attained at some point in the future, you will ALWAYS be chasing that image. If you cannot be content now you will never be content as there will always be something else you 'need' before you can be happy. A bigger car, a bigger house, a plane? This will give a rush of excitement followed by boredom with your new toy and craving for the next one.

This doesn't mean you shouldn't enjoy expensive things just that you should be happy first or nothing you get will ever satisfy you. (“Be bountiful and multiply”)

If you jump from one emotion to another, blindly avoiding pain and seeking pleasure with no awareness or separation from your emotions THEN your emotions will control you. You will be a slave to your desire. Anyone who knows your desires can control you.


"All man's efforts are for his mouth,
yet his appetite is never satisfied." 

Ecclesiastes 6:7

According to this book, the first step out: Become aware of every emotion you have as you experience it. Don't try to stop the emotion but learn to distance yourself from it, pain, sorrow or joy. Keep a part of yourself that is always observing yourself and your emotions.

By these definitions awakening is a process of building and maintaining the discipline of awareness.


Laziness brings on deep sleep,
And the shiftless man goes hungry.

Proverbs 19:15


"The wise man has eyes in his head,
while the fool walks in the darkness."

Ecclesiastes 6:7

Eric Hoffer "was an American social writer and philosopher. He produced ten books and was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom in February 1983 by President of the United States Ronald Reagan. His first book, The True Believer, published in 1951, was widely recognized as a classic, receiving critical acclaim from both scholars and laymen."

This is from the preface of his book, The True Believer;

"All mass movements generate in their adherents a readiness to die and a proclivity for united action; all of them, irrespective of the doctrine they preach and the program they project, breed fanaticism, enthusiasm, fervent hope, hatred and intolerance; all of them are capable of releasing a powerful flow of activity in certain departments of life; all of them demand blind faith and single hearted allegiance."

To start a fundamentalist religious group (or a non-religious one) blind obedience without question is necessary. If people are educated with history and the sciences in a way where it becomes integrated with their perception then lying to them becomes very difficult. If someone with religious authority lies to them, it will hurt to have someone they like lying to them but they will do what is right...eventually, once they are sure.

"The ideal devil is a foreigner. Hitler—the foremost authority on devils—found it easy to brand the German Jews as foreigners." (pp. 92-93)

Given the history of America and Britain in the region painting the west as 'the devil' is an easy thing to do. What was astonishing that the educated west did the exact same thing! Fundamentalists there use evidence out of context to turn all Muslims into the equivalent of 'devils'! [These Christian fundamentalists are an important constituent of the Republican Party]

In the same way the Muslim world was painted as 'the devil' during the crusades (started by the Pope for territorial reasons). Hatred becomes a habit. (p. 146) It takes roughly 21-30 days for the brain to build the neural processes to form a habit (depending on the intensity of the installation). If you hate someone and attack them (for example, through slander) then that behavior becomes a habit. A fundamentalist group, claiming to be from ANY religion, has developed a habit for hate and thus has lost all reason.(or at least will ignore reason unless the evidence is simply overwhelming and can’t be avoided)

The following extract is from the book "The True Believer: Thoughts on the Nature of Mass Movements" and is meant to illustrate why people become some emotionally involved in a mass movement or political party, without any ability - or even care for - rationality and reason;

8. Faith in a holy cause is to a considerable extent a substitute for the lost faith in ourselves. 

9. The less justified a man is in claiming excellence for his own self, the more ready is he to claim all excellence for his nation, his religion, his race or his holy cause. 

10. A man is likely to mind his own business when it is worth minding. When it is not, he takes his mind off his own meaningless affairs by minding other people's business. 

This minding of other people's business expresses itself in gossip, snooping and meddling, and also in feverish interest in communal, national and racial affairs. In running away from ourselves we either fall on our neighbor's shoulder or fly at his throat. 

11. The burning conviction that we have a holy duty toward others is often a way of attaching our drowning selves to a passing raft. What looks like giving a hand is often a holding on for dear life. Take away our holy duties and you leave our lives puny and meaningless. There is no doubt that in exchanging a self-centered for a selfless life we gain enormously in self-esteem. The vanity of the selfless, everi those who practice utmost humility, is boundless. 

12. One of the most potent attractions of a mass movement is its offering of a substitute for individual hope. This attraction is particularly effective in a society imbued with the idea of progress. For in the conception of progress, "tomorrow" looms large, and the frustration resulting from having nothing to look forward to is the more poignant. Hermann Rauschning says of pre-Hitlerian Germany that "The feeling of having come to the end of all things was one of the worst troubles we endured after that lost war."-' In a modern society people can live without hope only when kept dazed and out of breath by incessant hustling. The despair brought by unemployment comes not only from the threat of destitution, but from the sudden view of a vast nothingness ahead. The unemployed are more likely to follow the peddlers of hope than the handers-out of relief. 

Mass movements are usually accused of doping their followers with hope of the future while cheating them of the enjoyment of the present. Yet to the frustrated the present is irremediably spoiled. Comforts and pleasures cannot make it whole. No real content or comfort can ever arise in their minds but from hope.

13. When our individual interests and prospects do not seem worth living for, we are in desperate need of something apart from us to live for. All forms of dedication, devotion, loyalty and self-surrender are in essence a desperate clinging to something which might give worth and meaning to our futile, spoiled lives. Hence the embracing of a substitute will necessarily be passionate and extreme. We can have qualified confidence in ourselves, but the faith we have in our nation, religion, race or holy cause has to be extravagant and uncompromising. A substitute embraced in moderation cannot supplant and efface the self we want to forget. We cannot be sure that we have something worth living for unless we are ready to die for it. This readiness to die is evidence to ourselves and others that what we had to take as a substitute for an irrevocably missed or spoiled first choice is indeed the best there ever was.

It would help to develop empathy to fulfill the Golden Rule.

In the following lecture Karen Armstrong explains her view on the compassionate life and provides some guidance that can also be found in her book "Twelve Steps to a Compassionate Life"

‎"Allot of religious people prefer to be right, rather than compassionate." Karen Armstrong

The Heart Of Culture & Society

• The Charter for Compassion
• Heart of Culture and Society 1
• Heart of Culture and Society 2

"Make peace with the universe.Take joy in it. It will turn to gold.Resurrection will be now. Every moment, a new beauty." Rumi

“Happiness is not something ready made. It comes from your own actions.” ― Dalai Lama

Edelman sums up the practical advice that emerges in seven words: "When fishing for happiness, catch and release".

"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well" - Socrates (from The Crito - 48 b)

Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance is a book of philosophy written by a guy named Robert Pirsig. He cuts through many ideas to ultimately explain his theory on 'Quality' as the main idea that pulls together a split in modern culture that he describes as the division between the 'romantic' and 'objective/rational' ways of perceiving the world. The philosophy is a purely intellectual exercise couched in an emotional journey which is very personal and moving. I don't agree with all of the ideas he writes about in his book but it provides much needed perspectives as well as needed brain exercise to help get the mental motors running.

The idea he explains particularly clearly is the one of Arete which is the idea that inspired the concept of this site. { The most articulated value in Greek culture is areté. Translated as "virtue," the word actually means something closer to "being the best you can be," or "reaching your highest human potential."}

There are many other useful ideas and perspectives but I just wanted to outline one which is explained on this webpage and the following is an extract about Chautauquas:

The Lyceum Movement was a somewhat similar idea that preceded the Chautauquas. It was founded in 1826 in Massachusetts by Josiah Holbrook as a pioneer attempt at community education (it "was not limited to students in the academy, but was open to all the townsfolk, young and old" [Harding 1966, p.29]), its topics of lectures and debates ranging from morality to science. This idea spread and soon a circuit was established, originally an exchanging of lecturers between neighbouring lyceums. The Lyceum Movement gained popularity and it was inextricably linked to the Transcendentalists; R.W. Emerson (one of the first professional lecturers) gave around 100 lectures at Concord Lyceum and H.D. Thoreau read his ´Civil Disobedience´ publicly for the first time at the same place in 1848.

"Lecturing in the lyceum was as close as they came to converting a truly transcendental mode of utterance into popular success. This indeed seemed to be a form in which unfrocked ministers could display their talents to best advantage. Lecturing involved many of the same oratorical techniques as preaching. It was a rapidly expanding field; and above all, it was open-ended. Anything was possible in the lecture room. ´You may laugh, weep, reason, sing, sneer, or pray, according to your genius,´ Emerson told Carlyle" (Buell, p.52.).

"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung


"Today the principle of habeas corpus, established when King John signed the Magna Carta in 1215, is under attack. There’s every reason to believe that a renewed effort with the use of the internet that we can instead advance the cause of liberty by spreading an uncensored message that will serve to rein in government authority and challenge the obsession with war and welfare.

What I’m talking about is a system of government guided by the moral principles of peace and tolerance.

The Founders were convinced that a free society could not exist without a moral people. Just writing rules won’t work if the people choose to ignore them. Today the rule of law written in the Constitution has little meaning for most Americans, especially those who work in Washington DC.

Benjamin Franklin claimed “only a virtuous people are capable of freedom.” John Adams concurred: “Our Constitution was made for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”

A moral people must reject all violence in an effort to mold people’s beliefs or habits.

A society that boos or ridicules the Golden Rule is not a moral society. All great religions endorse the Golden Rule. The same moral standards that individuals are required to follow should apply to all government officials. They cannot be exempt.

The ultimate solution is not in the hands of the government.

The solution falls on each and every individual, with guidance from family, friends and community.

The #1 responsibility for each of us is to change ourselves with hope that others will follow. This is of greater importance than working on changing the government; that is secondary to promoting a virtuous society. If we can achieve this, then the government will change." - From Ron Paul's Farewell Address To Congress 

"Let the record show that on January 16, 2012, the good people of South Carolina booed the Golden Rule." ― Jon Stewart... [Note: Golden Rule = ‘Love your neighbour as yourself'. Matthew 22:39]

"Naturally, every age thinks that all ages before it were prejudiced, and today we think this more than ever and are just as wrong as all previous ages that thought so. How often have we not seen the truth condemned! It is sad but unfortunately true that man learns nothing from history." - Carl Jung

Socrates said, 'I am wise in one thing only and that is that I know nothing at all'

Nowadays we have a ton of books on each topic and sub-topic. But back in the days of the Founding Fathers very few people could read, much less write. And the books people had access to were very few. That's why people who could read and did desire knowledge would gather the best books of all time and study those. One of those books that the Founding Fathers MUST have studied is Plato's Dialogues. Not only is the entire foundation of western thought and philosophy founded on Plato's dialogues (and seems to be deeply connected to eastern thought as well) but they have been a mainstay of scholarly study since the Muslims transmitted them to the monks of the Dark Ages who copied the dialogues to preserve them for the future. Also, the Founding Fathers seem to have added the First Amendment for Free Speech after realizing that the United States would face the same problems as the Ancient Greeks did.

If you were a well read person who was dealing with tyranny then you would be aware of the historical synchronicities of Socrates "Apology" with modern times. Being called dumb, crazy, anarchist, extremist... followed by a witch trial, conviction and execution. Such witch hunts never take place in public. Only in private. So only a few people realize what's going on.

I have covered Barack Obama's alleged extremism in detail here but I thought I would cover ANOTHER extremist, as labeled by the Mitt & the GOP, quickly to show some historical parallels then I will continue on with my quick look at Plato's Dialogues (each and every one).


"Apology" 19 b Socrates is guilty of criminal meddling, in that he inquires into things below the earth and in the sky, and make the weaker argument defeat the stronger, and teaches others to follow his example.

Socrates would investigate truths in public, surrounded by listeners and admirers, everyone allowed to question and doubt Socrates's statements (Socrates required that) so the group could reach the best conclusion on all matters. Most times the leaders or 'reputable' people of society were proven to be wrong on thier beliefs. So Socrates was basically attacking the Status Quo i.e. when truth encounters tradition it takes a while for truth to sink through (as the followers go through anger, denial, acceptance etc.). Thus, to leaders (& thier parrot like followers), it seems that the arguments Socrates was destroying were "establishment Truths" and Socrates was probably involved in some sort of Sophistry (i.e. hypnosis that is stealing people away from "the truth"). Why? Because the status quo couldn't believe in the newly uncovered truths. This is something that has happened time and time again throughout history. This is just the latest one in the western, first world, countries.

This is what happened in the 2012 Republican Primaries where the Status Quo (Romney) was challenged by the Anti-Status Quo (Ron Paul) which led to election fraud & a cover-up of the growing Anti-Status Quo Movement (called the "Ron Paul Revolution") growing in the ex-Republican party ... mostly hidden except for people wearing masks on YouTube explaining stuff - But I only use mainstream news sources so the only proofs I have about this part of American History are outlined in this post. So far so good. Now for some historical parallels.

In the 16th Century there was the Renaissance which was a movement to understand the world through observation. This was the beginning of the scientific method. Many scientists got in trouble and the smart ones retracted what they said so the Roman Catholic Church wouldn't kill them. This was a war between reason & investigating the world around us VS the established Status Quo which was to not question ANYTHING the Church had determined to be Truth. Eventually (over allot of time), a peace was reached between the Liberals of the new Age of Reason and the Conservatives of the Roman Catholic Church that the Scientists would not investigated ANYTHING about religion which would remain in the domain of the Church. Thus the split between religion and science began in the west which is still tearing the west apart i.e. when science & investigation confines itself to ONLY looking under ONE Street light for truth while there is a whole road they are not allowed to explore then you cut off the head of science right from the start.

Socrates lived in a time where all aspects and categories of life were open and safe for exploration, at least as far as societal/cultural acceptance goes. The Ancient Greeks lived by a concept called "Arete", often translated as Virtue but a more accurate interpretation seems to be "to seek excellence in ALL aspects of life". So Socrates was following cultural norm when he began his investigation into wisdom (& encountered mob mentality which exists to this day i.e. exactly what happened with the Ron Paulians in the Republican Primaries... history DOES repeat itself!).

Note: Liberal means someone who looks forward and seeks equal rights for all people, as in the US Constitution. While Conservative means you want to keep things as they are i.e. Status Quo. Nowadays these definitions have become muddled. F.A. Hayek and the Founding Fathers could probably be called "Classical Liberals" because of thier progressive and fair views.


"Apology" 21 c After puzzling about it for some time, I set myself at last with considerable reluctance to check the truth of it in the following way. I went to interview a man with a high reputation for wisdom, because I felt that here if anywhere, I should succeed in disproving the oracle and pointing out to my divine authority, You said that I was the wisest of men, but here is a man who is wiser than I am.

Well, I gave a thorough examination to this person - I need not mention his name, but it was one of our politicians that I was studying when I had this experience - and in conversation with him I formed the impression that although in many people's opinion, and especially his own, he appeared to be wise, in fact he was not. Then when I began to try to show him that he only thought he was wise and was not really so, my efforts were resented both by him and by many of the other people present.

In the case of Socrates, he was told by an Oracle (Old Testament calls them "prophets" - there are many types of Old Testament Prophets) that he was the wisest man in the land. Socrates didn't believe the Oracle as he realized that he didn't even know what Wisdom was and so he decided to ask the people in his society, who were considered to be the wisest, what Wisom is. Thus began his quest for Wisdom.

Notice how similar this experience of Socrates must have been to Ron Paulians encountering Mitt Romney, Newt Gingrich, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum, Michelle Bachman & the pizza man. A bunch of idiots with power amongst the gullible. It was no wonder that Ron Paul was labeled an extremist and everyone pounced on the tiny bit they could find with such relish and single-mindedness that it was obvious from the start that Ron Paulians were involved in a witch hunt.

"Apology" 27c In my opinion, gentlemen, this man is a thoroughly selfish bully, and has brought this action against me out of sheer wanton agressiveness and self-assertion. He seems to be devising a sort of intelligence test for me, saying to himself, Will the infallible Socrates realize that I am contradicting myself for my own amusement, or shall I succeed in deceiving him and the rest of my audience?

28 b As a matter of fact gentlemen, I do not feel that it requires much defense to clear myself of Meletus' accusation. What I have said already is enough. But you know very well the truth of what I said already is enough. But you know very well the truth of what I said in an earlier part of my speech, that I have incurred a great deal of bitter hostility, and this is what will bring about my destruction, if anything does - not Meletus nor Anytus, but the slander and jealousy of a very large section of the people. They have been fatal to a great many other innocent men, and I suppose will continue to do so; but there is no likelihood that they will stop at me. But perhaps someone will say, Do you feel no compunction, Socrates, at having followed a line of action which puts you in danger of the death penalty?

I might fairly reply to him, You are mistaken, my friend, if you think that a man who is worth anything out to spend his time weighing up the prospects of life and death. He has only one thing to consider in performing any action - that is, whether he is acting rightly or wrongly, like a good man or a bad one.

The problem with Socrates's quest for Wisdom was that people who think they are wise don't like to be questioned on thier wisdom much less proven to be unwise... which is what Socrates did (It's also what Ron Paul did... that's why Mitt Romney REQUIRED A LOYALTY OATH... is that not crazy?). Using conversation Socrates proved that ALL the wise people turned out to not even know the meaning of wisdom. Thus Socrates concluded that the Oracle meant that he was the wisest simply because he knew he didn't know what wisdom was.

Of course, this made these leaders of society angry. They also had more influence than Socrates and were able to convict him just on the enemy citizens force of authority (like it happened in Salem or the Inquisition or in the South on a regular basis, or with Ron Paulians).

So the leaders of society he talked with, in front of a crowd of people, and proved they did not know what wisdom was (or anything else for that matter, such as virtue, love etc), got angry and decided to kill him. Socrates defense against these vengeful charges is outlined in the Apology. The interesting reality is that he managed to sway enough of the jury to almost get an acquittal. But it wasn't enough and he was sentenced to death by poison. The same dynamic that occurred with the black guy in the book 'To Kill A Mocking Bird' (see first video here of a dramatization of the Court proceedings in To Kill A Mockingbird).

This last part is just to show that bad people trying to take over (i.e. in a Despotism/Tyranny), subverting the Constitution of the Land is as old as the Human Race itself...


"Apology" 32 b - c The only office which I have ever held in our city, gentlemen, was when I was elected to the COuncil. It so happened that our group was acting as the executive when you decided that the ten commanders who had failed to rescue men who were lost in the naval engagement should be tried en bloc, which was illegal, as you all recognized later. On this occasion I was the only member of the executive who insisted that you should not act unconstitutionally, and voted against the proposal; and although  your leaders were all ready to denouce and arrest me, and you were all urging them at the top of your voices, I thought that it was my duty to face it out on the side of law and justics rather than support you, through fear of prison or death, in your direction.

This happened while we were still under a democracy. When the oligarchy came into power, the Thirty Commisioners in thier turn summoned me and four others to the Round Chamber and instructed us to go and fetch Leon of Salamis from his home for execution. This was of course only one of many instances in which they issued such instruction, thier object being to implicate as many people as possible in thier wickedness. On this occasion, however, I again made it clear not by my words but by my actions that death did not matter to me at all - if that is not too strong an expression - but that it mattered all the world to me that I shoulddo nothing wrong or wicked. Powerful as it was, that government did not terrify me into doing a wrong action. When we came out of the Round Chamber, the  other four went off to Salamis and arrested Leon, and I went home. I should probably have been put to death for this, if the government had not fallen soon afterward. There are plenty of people who will testify to these statements.

Mitt Romney's Anti-ObamaCare Individual Mandate argument is from Ron Paul whose ideas on society & economics began and ended about 30 years ago. So although he's right on many things, he is painfully out of date of others (However, Ron Paul DID say the GOP are hypocrites for arguing over the Individual Mandate in the general election... while it's OK for a Republican PRIMARY election). However, Ron Paul is not advocating cutting medicare or social security in his plan JUST looking for a way to get people working and striving for the American Dream again. BUT the Koch Brothers took the parts of Ron Paul's Plan (which took 30 years to develop) and have been marketing HALF of it so they can go to war (they own war factories and are supporting Romney) so you can't blame Ron Paul for falling for snake oil derived from his own philosophy and economic plan. (Note: Mitt Romney is connected to the rich elite that created the financial crisis in the first place and thus constitute an "Oligarchy").

On one side Romney wants to end the 30 year old individual mandate in the US Constitution which would pull the foundation out of medicare and medicaid ... while on the other hand Mitt Romney wants to amend the Constitution to permanently reduce the rights of US Citizens who happen to be gay. So he is saying he will "fix" the Constitution. In other words, Mitt is just a hypocrite successfully manipulating the uninformed right to believe he supports the Constitution while attacking the Constitution at the same time all with the goal of war.  (Fox News makes people even dumber than the other US News Media channels, though they are all pretty bad).

The only solution to this problem is to restart the reading habit that the Founding Fathers of the USA so obviously had. At this rate I predict a political philosophy with a fundamentalist group of followers (like a "religion" - people don't like to use the word "cult" nowadays!) for every politician and political group within 10 years.

Apparently every nut can make a religion and get protection from the US Government and News Media i.e. no investigation OR exposure. For example Mitt Romney comes from a cult established in the 1800s by a Charlatan who took thier women for himself (thus starting the tradition of polygamy), wrote a whole book just for them and created a bunch of rituals and beliefs for his followers. This isn't information you'll find in mainstream US News Media but it does exists on NON Mainstream/US Sources.

Anyways, Ayn Rand's strong 'anti-communist' and 'pro-capitalist' stance was a reaction to extreme Despotism, i.e. she literally lived in a time where EVERYTHING was controlled by the Government (which is the very definition of Socialism). The new fake right has labeled helping ANYONE as socialism. That's not just crazy it's also anti-Christian. But that's what you get with an uneducated population which about 50% of the USA has become.

Paul Ryan, a fake conservative (based on his warmongering & budget plan) and fake Christian (based on Jesus's teachings in the Gospels) was using Ayn Rand as a means to build up a reputation for Southern Conservatives (Southerners LOVE Ayn Rand, Democrats AND Republicans). Recently he was attacked by both Nuns and the Vatican for his draconian cuts to social safety nets (i.e. if your mom or dad loses thier job, Paul Ryan's plan says 'That's it, you're out.' There is no means under the Paul Ryan plan to get people back on thier feet because Ayn Rand didn't like 'handouts' ... which is understandable since ALL handouts in her time went to the Communist elites). In other words, if you lose your job and you have nothing and are thus destined to live homeless on the streets till you die then so be it! That's UNCONSTITUTIONAL Capitalism NOT Constitutional Capitalism.

Paul Ryan's ENTIRE plan, (which the GOP has been promoting for the last 4 years as the 'USA's Salvation) is designed to accomplish just ONE goal: war, invasion & nation building.

The current socio-economic situation exists after 30 years of campaigning by Fredrick Hayek whose book, 'Road to Serfdom' was the bible of politicians in the 80's & the UK (Margaret Thatcher) and led to a host of privatizations throughout the western world. This is 2012. Now we have to look at the result like scientists (something economists are supposed to be but economists on the right seem to forget real easy)... and plan for the future. That plan has to include two things from an economics standpoint. Stabilization AND growth.

"Allot of religious people prefer to be right, rather than compassionate." Karen Armstrong

Generally, you can explain the structure of a culture in three ways;

1. An egalitarian society (one where men and women are equal in rights).

2. A Patriarchy (Where men dominate), and

3. A Matriarchy (Where women dominate)

1 - When a culture or tribe is small. Such as in a fishing village or another such small community, tasks and responsibilities tend to get shared by all members of society. This leads to a social structure where men and women are basically equal.

This is a small hunter-gather group that depends on each other to survive and live in harmony with other tribes in a kind of large family system (i.e. the tribes are interconnected);

Article (above image from article);Because humans lived as hunter-gatherers for 95 percent of their species' history, current foraging societies provide the best window for viewing human social evolution, according to the authors. Given that, the researchers focused on co-residence patterns among more than 5,000 individuals from 32 present-day foraging societies around the globe, including the Gunwinggu, Labrador Inuit, Mbuti, Apache, Aka, Ache, Agta and Vedda.

A major point in the study is that foraging bands contain several individuals completely unconnected by kinship or marriage ties, yet include males with a vested interest in the offspring of daughters, sisters and wives.

"The increase in human network size over other primates may explain why humans evolved an emphasis on social learning that results in cultural transmission," said Hill. "Likewise, the unique composition of human ancestral groups promotes cooperation among large groups of non-kin, something extremely rare in nature."
The group's findings appear in the paper "Co-Residence Patterns in Hunter-Gatherer Societies Show Unique Human Social Structure." It is the first published analyses of adult co-residence patterns in hunter-gatherer societies based on census data rather than post-marital residence typologies, Hill noted.

2. When a culture become focused on hunting, especially when it reaches the totemic stage then the culture become dominated by men as men are the providers of the primary sustenance.

Imagine the above small hunter-gather groups have grown, made better weapons, hunt more and you get the social structure of the Apaches or Sioux or Cherokee.

(image source)

(image source)

The above is an example of a figurine found, in variations, all over the world. pretty much. Many archeologists call this a "fertility goddess", although as a professor in college put it, 'in her day something that was required for theories was proof' i.e. it's called a 'fertility goddess' because of the large ass and breasts. Besides that there is no other evidence. In fact, based on some of its ancient locations and modern variations in India, Joseph Campbell theorized that it could be like a talisman. In this case, he called this figure a Symbol of 'the lady of the hearth' since those figures tend to be found around a fire place; which was the center of the tribe in terms of food, warmth and community. Since there are no features on the head (as it is in most figures, some even without heads), she is definitely a symbol that not only is ancient but emerged in later times as one of the goddesses in the Greek pantheon.

In fact, there is a theory (very well backed) that suggests that the reason there are so many variations of the Zeus myth of abducting 'mortal' women and having children with them that this represented the possible invasion of a patriarchal tribe into a matriarchal zone. Each female abduction, a takeover of a new region.

Obviously the hunting tribes(patriarchies) are more battle hardened and would win in any drawn out war, if there was competition over land.

Saharia's theory on the origins of patriarchy is mostly about the remnants of a civilization in decline. So we have a people that are violent. In atmospheres where the ions are positive rather than negative (because of the lack of moisture) to which humans have a negative reaction... imagine millinia of generations in such an environment! It also explains why the Saudis have the largest water plants and use the most water of any country in the world.

Another theory for the switch the a patriarchal society is based on an ancient myth of a time, long ago, when women ruled. A bunch of men got fed up with their rule and formed secret clubs, conspiring to take over. One day they revolted and men have been in charge ever since. [Don't remember where that myth is, so will update this at some-point in the future. You can learn more by reading Joseph Campbell's "Primitive Mythology", "Occidental Mythology" and "Oriental Mythology"]

Currently, the general trend is a movement towards an egalitarian society.
(Despite an outlier group with a great amount of money and power.)

Most of the problems in understanding history or interpreting culture comes from the perceptions of the people involved. For example: America was discovered by Columbus BUT technically, it had already been discovered as there were people living there. But they were seen as savages and were massacred.