One of the fascinating scientific discoveries made in the 20th century was the discovery that the human mind can only visualize one thing at a time. This discovery also led to several findings that when presented with two contradictory truths, the human mind will attempt to synthesize a new truth by combining the two contradictions into a new understanding or reality (Nigel, 25). To illustrate this point, imagine what happens to you when you see a movie presented in 3D.

Before entering the film, you are given a pair of glasses. You must wear these glasses as you watch the film in order to be able to see it correctly. You take your seat and decide that just for the fun of it, you will not wear the glasses as you were told, but rather you will watch the first five minutes without them. What happens is that as the two images are projected over‑top of each other from two different angles you see the screen as an image of a blurred, confusing, mess.

The two projectors (or single projector projecting two images) are not projecting the same image and you see the screen as it really is; a blurred double‑image. After a time (and after popping an Excedrin into your mouth) you put on your glasses in order to actually watch the film. Suddenly the jumbled mess before you becomes a single image often with remarkable depth, clarity, and realism. But how did something as simple as colored or polarized glasses make such a difference?

What happens (and this is a bit of an over-simplification) is that the mind is tricked by the glasses by being presented with two contradictory images simultaneously. The old style of 3D glasses came with one lens colored green and the other red. The newer polarized ones block or allow different types of light due to the fact that light is only passed through each filter when it has been similarly polarized. Either way, the 3D effect is accomplished by blocking part of the light from each eye. No matter the method the result is the same, both eyes are not seeing the same image and the brain cannot quite process this.

This when the rational part of the mind kicks in. The green lens over one eye and the red lens over the other (or the polarized light lenses) present the mind with a contradiction. This forces the mind to make a synthesis out of the contradiction in order to make sense of it. The mind cannot "see" two different images at one time and thus it begins to process the two images as one. As a result, the screen before you no longer appears as the two images that it really is, but now appears to be a single image. The mind is forced to synthesize a new image in an attempt to make sense out of the visual contradiction. The result is perceived depth.

This desynchronization of the eyes and attempt of the mind to reconcile two conflicting images not only makes the two different images to appear as one, but also makes it virtually impossible to see it otherwise. Since the image is being presented from carefully measured right and left angles of view which overlap, and each eye is only seeing part of the image, the image then appears to be three dimensional even though the image on the screen has no actual depth. Without the glasses to desynchronize the eyes, the image on the screen remains visible only as what it really is; a jumbled mess.

In the early twentieth century a new form of state organization was born. Totalitarianism. Totalitarianism would attempt to redefine all values and boundaries and in a sense, what the people of the state saw as reality. The philosophy and political ideology of the totalitarian state was, however, paradoxical.

For example, one of the paradoxical philosophies of the totalitarian state was the obliteration of the traditional boundaries between public and private life. As Philip J. Adler put it, "what had been considered private was now declared public and thus a matter for governmental concern and control" (Adler, 580). The very wording of this sentence contradicts itself. That which is private is by definition public?

Totalitarian governments deliberately turned away from rationality and reason and adopted a philosophy of antirationalism (Adler, 581). Perhaps the best illustration of the inconsistent totalitarian ideology was in the declaration that the mind could refute and even redefine the laws of physics. Some of the leading experts in Stalin's court argued that human will could overcome anything, and what had hitherto been regarded as the "laws of nature or of economics" could be suspended. As one of Stalin's economists put it, “our task is not to study economics but to change it. We are bound by no laws” (Johnson, 267). In a nutshell, the totalitarian regime emphatically stated that truth is whatever the party says it is. They literally stated that the will of the party defines reality. This ideology came to be know as "the will to power."

The post World War I totalitarian states in a sense were attempting to project two contradictory, overlapping images to the people. For their part, the people were expected to digest these irrational, paradoxical truths with absolute conviction of their validity. How could any rational human being accept such an illogicality? Many did not, but the majority of the people both in fascist Germany and socialist Russia, readily ingested the dogma that they were fed. How could so many rational human beings accept with such certainty that which was clearly contradictory and illogical?

The answer lay in controlling how the people viewed the images that were presented before them. In the form of propaganda, censorship, and an enormous quantity of fear, the totalitarianist states were able to, in a sense, superimpose polarized glasses on their people. By presenting only part truths and withholding vital information in a calculated and strategic method, the state was able to successfully confuse the minds of many of its people. Sitting before the people was actually an inconsistent double image, but through the polarized glasses of propaganda and half-truths the rational mind was forced to fuse the double image into a single one to make sense of it. After time, some people were no longer able to distinguish one contradiction from another and they could now see depth and truth where in fact, there was none.

The ability to view two contradictory images at the same time and accept them both as a single truth is what George Orwell called "doublethink." In his novel 1984, Orwell depicts the world as it would be if totalitarianism had succeeded in its objectives and had fully realized its goals. The protagonist of this novel, Winston Smith, is constantly being presented with facts and ideas that are paradoxical and contradictory. As was the case with the real totalitarian states, the distinction between public and private life had been done away with, and the very laws of nature were supposedly defined by the will of the party.

Initially, Winston could not accept these inconsistent ideas. Winston cannot accept that two plus two equals five if the party wills it to be so. His mind is logical and rational. In one instance the telescreen (the Party's primary means of propaganda) announces that the chocolate ration had bean reduced from thirty grams to twenty. The next day the telescreen announces that there had been demonstrations thanking Big Brother for raising the chocolate ration up to twenty grams a week. Winston thinks to himself, "And only yesterday it had been announced that the ration was to be reduced to twenty grains a week. Was it possible that they could swallow that, after only twenty‑four hours? Yes, they swallowed it... with the stupidity of an animal" (Orwell, 51).

Winston tried to not allow himself to see through the polarized glasses that the party would have him wear. In the end however, Winston could no longer hold out against the physical and psychological damage being done to him by the party. Though he had originally believed that freedom is the freedom to say that two plus two makes four, when O'Brien asks Winston how many fingers he (O'Brien) is holding up Winston replies "I don't know" (Orwell, 208). Winston replied that he didn't know because, in fact, he no longer did know. He could no longer see things as they were. The constant contradictions fed simultaneously to his mind had destroyed his ability to see things as they really were. Fused together, the images of fact and fiction formed a single image in which they could no longer be distinguished one from other. Winston's ability to rationally choose between reality and fantasy had been destroyed.

Westernized democratic nations may not be in any immediate danger of losing their ability to reason by the forced means of totalitarian state. The danger of losing autonomy and rationality by the loss of ability to distinguish genuine depth from an artificial projection, however, is still very real. In a Westernized culture, the polarized glasses imposed by half-truths and double speak are no less distorting than those of a totalitarian government; they are just harder to recognize.

As Neil Postman illustrated in his essay, “Amusing Ourselves to Death” he states that in our Western Democracy there is no Big Brother or Ministry of Truth required to deprive people of their autonomy, maturity and history. As he sees it, "the people have come to love their oppression" (Postman, 191). There is no reason to ban a book, if there is no one who wants to read one. There is no need to control people by inflicting pain for they are controlled with distractions. There is no need to lie to people who simply do not care to know the truth. There is no need to spy on people who willingly make their private lives public via the Internet.

The Truman Show, released in 1998 by Paramount Pictures, illustrates how perceived comforts can be just as effective a tool for manipulation in a democratic state as fear can be in a totalitarian one. Winston is trapped in an impossibly awful world. Truman, on the other hand, is trapped in an impossibly good one. Both are being kept from seeing things as they are. Both are being forced to see through polarized glasses. Most interestingly, both are miserable.

The difference between the two protagonists is that the opposition faced by Winston is openly tyrannical, whereas the opposition faced by Truman is more subversive. Truman's oppressors would keep him in Seahaven by making it secure, comfortable and by giving him a "perfect" life. The false reality faced by Truman is, however, just as oppressive as the one faced by Winston. In Truman's case however the lies are sugar‑coated in an attempt to make them seem sweet. Truman initially does not attempt to escape from his prison because at first he does not know that it is one. Like Winston, Truman also is manipulated to see truth where there is none.

In Truman's situation there is also, no distinction between public and private life. As Truman's wife Meryl put it, "there is no difference between a private life and a public life. My life is my life, and my life is the Truman Show."

Truman is faced with a world that, though it appears to have depth, is really just as flat as the 3D film and as blurred as the ideologies of the totalitarian states. Unlike Winston, Truman however is able to escape from his confinement. As he grows, Truman begins to awaken to the reality of his surroundings. He begins to see through the false images that are placed before him, and he begins to be able to distinguish that which is real from that which is synthesized. He is able to, if you will, remove the glasses from his eyes. When he does he realizes that the world presented before him clearly has no real depth and further he realizes that it never did. Once Truman realizes this, he becomes aware of the falseness of his environment and he can no longer be confined or controlled.

The Mormon church for almost its entire existence has projected a double-image into the minds of its members. It has imposed polarization using half-truths, lies, deception, propaganda, fear and shame. Where the laws prohibit the Church from using outright totalitarian means of control they have employed the subtitle types of control used on Truman with the allure of the impossibly good life, and also punishment if you try to leave it. No matter the method, either way the goal is the same; to rob the members of their power to will--meaning their ability to think. The Church would have its members (and have us all) see consistency and depth where there is in reality only a flat, double-image.

Sadly, many of the members of the Church cannot be convinced that there is no depth to the illusions being projected to them. They cannot be convinced that they are willfully seeing the image of life selectively. They cannot be persuaded that they are only seeing part of the picture. After all, the illusion is convincing. It appears for all intents and purposes to be a sky not a dome. Many cannot be convinced that they are living in a bubble at all.

Many members of the Mormon Church will not so much as tolerate any who claim that there may be something wrong with their vision. Not only is the member's vision selective, but so too is their hearing. If they were to allow all of the light in their eyes could perceive the entire image, at which point their minds would suddenly see what was always right before them. They would see a double-image. Yet so many will not remove the glasses. Worse, most will not accept that they are wearing glasses at all. Therefore it is impossible for them to see the truth.

Perhaps most tragically are those who are aware that they are viewing the world though polarized glasses but they do not care because they have come to love their oppression. Essentially, they love Big Brother. These are those who are most often inducted into what Orwell would have called, "the inner party." I believe that this is the case with most General Authorities. They loved their oppression and they have now become the oppressor. They have become the inner party, or as Orwell might have put it if had he been Mormon, "The Ministry of Love."

Not all remain in confinement however. There are those who are able to escape from the false reality imposed on them by the Church. Truman was able to escape from his prison but only because he was first able to recognize his world for what it really was; a cage. Second, with this realization Truman had a choice to make. He had to choose whether to embrace the truth and personal integrity, or live the lie and choose personal comfort. He chose the former.

One the truth has been exposed a choice must be made. SLDrone put it this way, “Now a choice of integrity vs. personal comfort must be made. The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, together with its doctrine, dogma and origins are exposed as fraudulent, modified and untrue. It’s hard to believe at first, and even harder to accept. As the clandestine search for truth begins the searcher is skeptical. Heretical thoughts are dismissed at first, then apologized for later. We do what we can to protect our paradigm, our life map, our personal definition of how we see the world. Then the evidence becomes overwhelming, factual and without need of interpretation. Things are what they are. A choice is made. Some bury their new knowledge in a panic and return to their life as usual. They reject the invitation to personal growth and pain. They follow the path of least resistance and the search for truth is over, buried, never to be reexamined. Others, dedicated to personal integrity and truth also must make a choice. Do they make their new knowledge known, do they keep it to themselves, how will they alter their lives? How will they alter the lives of those they love? These are personal and deeply difficult choices. There is no right pattern, we must not look to others for answers. We must search deep inside ourselves, weigh all consequences, then decide on a course of action that balances wisdom, pain, and integrity.”

To current members of the Church I say this: remove your polarized glasses. Open your eyes. Let yourself see the world as it really is. Let yourself read the history of your own Church. You do not know it. Let yourself see what is clearly right in front of you. Explore the boundaries of what you think is real. It may surprise you to find that what you thought was the sky was actually a painting. It may amaze you to see just how much of your life has no real depth. It may astound you when you find that your haven was a prison. Two plus two is not five, even if the “brethren” say it is. Your private life is not by definition public.

John 8:32 is correct. And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free.




Notes:

1. Nigel, Calder. The mind of Man. (London: BBC, 1970), 25.
2. Adler, Philip J. World Civilizations, 2 ed. (Belmont CA: Thompson learning, Inc.
1999), 580.
3. Adler, 581.
4. Adler, 581.
5. Johnson, Paul. Modern Times: Revised Edition. (New York: HarperCollins Publishers.
1991), 267.
6. Orwell, George. 1984 (New York: Penguin Books Inc. 1950), 51.
7. Orwell, 208.
8. Postman, Neal. Amusing ourselves to death.@ In Thinking about thinking (Orlando Florida: Harcourt Brace Custom Publishers, 1999), 191
9. The Truman Show, Paramount Pictures, 1998.
10 SLDrone RfM. Short topics #636.
11. John 8:32. KJV.

Nice!

Timothy

Excellent Sunday morning read!

I've been reading Postman's essay, great stuff.