Take it apart and we can quite easily see the primary layers of indoctrination each corresponding to market verticals that vary in the sophistication of their respective thinking faculties:
:D Theology (the “scholarly” layer) — voluminous body of text that appeal to those who make a serious career out of backward-engineering substance from established-by-edict “truths”.
:D Sloganeering (the equivalent of ad copywriting) — involves extraction of koans, catchphrases, and taglines from said body of text to make key concepts accessible to the moderately-educated.
:D Symbolism (the equivalent of brand-reinforcing visual constructs such as logos) — involves development and dissemination of powerful and visually/emotionally-appealing symbols and artefacts that are easily burnt into the psyche from childhood and are readily accessible even to illiterates.
It reads like a textbook case and is not too different from some of history’s most successful mind control campaigns across business and politics — from McDonalds and Nike to Nazism and Communism.
Take the household brand Nike.
Firstly, its swoosh symbol is recognised across continents and across cultures and finds itself tattooed on arms, graffiti-ed into walls, and hair-pruned into scalps with pride. Yet it instrinsically describes nothing about the product it represents.
Second, Its slogan “Just do it” in all its elegant simplicity has become a mantra from which athletes surfing on their second wind derive some kind of spiritual “energy”.
Lastly, an army of “designers” and engineers put in the hours and talent to develop a tangible product that actually looks like something worth shelling out $200 for.
Brilliant. Method and volume of blood spilt may vary across campaigns, but the principles are consistent.
As UP n grad‘s expresses in his own burst of equally brilliant insight into the real matter of things:
The CBCP does not want a discussion of the features of the RH bill. Fr. Bernas’ article in the Inquirer is a great example. It is well-written and engaging BUT it is distracting. DEATHS is like the Bernas article. No mention of what is right or wrong about teaching 13-years and older kids which between holding hands, a kiss, or sperm-contact with-egg-cells results in babies and “why do they make condoms anyway???”
[Link added by moi]
In this age of abundant information, we need to be discerning and our thinking faculties more alert to the onslaught of bullshit.
:) Regard information coming from traditional hotbeds of inbred thinking with a more critical mind.
:) Beware of engaging eloquence from scholars of dubious bodies of knowledge.
:) Think twice about joining rallies organised around catchy but meaningless acronyms.
As a former boss of mine always says when regarding a piece of shoddy work: Konting thinking, pare.
Apply said thinking along the lines of the perspective of the way branders and marketers operate, and we hit two birds with one stone — the Big Bird: a healthy regard for religion and the Bonus Bird: a more level-headed approach to consumerism.
============
Join us on Facebook!
Popularity: 1% [?]
what’s so wrong with us, that when religious organisations dip their fingers in the murky pool of politics we balk? is it not more disturbing if politics dip its fingers in the shallow pool of religion?
All of these entries lambasting RCC came about right after the Voltes 5 prelates called for societal transformation. What’s wrong with that? If any Tom, Dick and Harry can preach anywhere, at anytime, without any religious degree in their sleeves, what more are those who know
What these prelates just wanted to say is this–we cannot have moral recovery without a new government in place. Period. What’s wrong with that?
Is’nt the right of Filipino prelates to do that and ask the Laity to unite against this immoral regime? No.
Why do we have double standards? When politics dip its fingers on religious matters, we keep silent. When religion dips its fingers at political matters, we balk. Why? Because many of us know how influential religious leaders are.
i don’t know where Benigno got this impression that religion is a brand marketing creation. benigno, everything around you is brand marketing. everything. even get real philippines is a brand creation. even You.
and what’s so wrong with that? you want people, especially Filipinos to be logical, when your arguments are’nt.
you want people to aspire more, when,, opportunities here a dime a dozen.
from all these so-called scholarly insight of yours, I failed to find an ingot of useful knowledge. I mean, if you just want to say that don’t believe when religious turn political, just say it. Don’t burden us with your intellectual babble.
pat,
as ding G would say, spot on…..
actually blogging is a form of marketing. bloggers would blog to sell their opinions to those who do not have opinions and they take pains in putting their opinions in a very nice package of idioms, syntax and prose reducible to perfect sloganeering.
Patricio, we already have a state infrastructure for determining who and what about our government is “immoral”. In theory (and I believe it is enshrined in our Constitution), the rules and processes embodied in this infrastructure of judgment can function without the “help” of any religious group.
That said, the Church as a citizen of the state can say what it wants and influence whoever happens to be within earshot of its pontifications.
Trouble is, unlike most ordinary entities, the Church enjoys a 2000-year-old grip over the more primitive sensibilities of the human mind. And Pinoys, who are particularly disadvantaged in the thinking aspect of their sensibilities are particularly susceptible to being misled by the messages delivered by what is essentially an intellectually inbred institution.
Though those two words I choose to describe said institution may sound derogatory, if you step back from your culturally-ingrained abhorrence for people who dare to question the righteousness of said institution, you will find that it is a real description of the nature of said institution — closed, edict-driven, and totalitarian.
and what is that institution you are talking about here? are you saying that in the Constitution, there are constitutional bodies there tasked to mentor us what’s right and what’s wrong based on a moral code? are you saying that the Constitution itself is a moral code? that laws are inherently moral?
Benigno, you know me. As I’ve said previously, I’ve an avowed Atheist. Like you, I abhor the principles of religion. Let me be very clear–the principle, not the institution. I think that there’s a better way of explaining things in the universe. I am an Atheist not because I hate the institution nor considers it as closed, edict-driven and totalitarian. No.
I abhor the very idea that humans are products of Someone’s hair-brained idea. Or sub-categories of a SuperBrand with a pernicious and quirky attitude towards anything not sublime.
Everybody knows that the Church, is totalitarian, in structure. And people accept that because that’s a reflection of their belief system–remember they function as shepherds.
And how do you actually know if this totalitarian institution delivers messages from an intellectually decrepit and old inbred thinking?
So, is it old thinking to call for moral re-institution? Is it decrepit to say that we need new governments in place of a corrupt one? what is inbred thinking for you my dear friend?
benigno,
excuse me sir. i believe in the right of any group to say its piece on the state of the country and i believe in the self-righteous pontication of the CBCP because it has more credibility than most of us and i believe in its position on the issue not because my mind is so susceptible to being misled, but i happened to have some degree of common sense and understanding.
how about you? where did you get the right to pontificate on the Church or the CBCP? if you argue that you can deliver your message by virtue of “press freedom”, does not the same anchor argues with the same vigor for CBCP?
the very role of the Church is to make us toe the path of salvation. That’s their role. And it just so happens that Arroyo’s regime is making it very difficult for Catholics to tread that old, hard road to heaven and instead, always choose the easy road to hell. Because the pathway towards damnation is long, wide and easy to traverse. That’s the problem Benigno.
This Arroyo regime is creating the very conditions for Pinoys to sin a lot. It promotes corruption. It promotes bata-bata system. It has a motto—steal big and do it with us.
Worst, corruption has permeated in all aspects of Pinoy life that if we don’t do anything now, we may yet find ourselves, our kids and the future generation facing a very bleak and morally bankrupt future. Do you want that Benigno? Do you want your pamangkins to have this stupid idea that it’s better to be a boxer than be a scientist or better to lick one’s ass instead of earning one’s pay through hard work?
It’s time for Elijah to call for a revolution.
JCC:
If I may have the opportunity to comment on your response:
“I believe in the self-righteous pontication of the CBCP because it has more credibility than most of us”
It’s just noteworthy that while 5 of the top CBCP bishop leaders are crying about anti-corruption in the country, the “funds” are being carried out of the palace to; where else- but the so-called projects of the “fathers” somewhere in the south.
Patricio, stidi ka lang diyan.
You say here:
You say people “accept that”. And I say why should they?
It’s that simple. Rememeber, dude: free inquiry. Is the Church exempt from it? Kinda sounds like this whole debate about “executive privilege”, doesn’t it?
Which is why I make this observation:
We latch on to the Church and its medieval thinking and governance approach in order to fight for our supposedly modern democratic ideals making out an otherwise structurally-democratic and modern government as the Bad Guy and a closed inbred institution as the Good Guy.
Evidently you agree that the Church is totalitarian in structure and last I heard, when you go totalitarian the first thing to go in such an environment is free thought and free inquiry. And without free thought and free inquiry, guess what: the knowledge pool and the thinking that stiches said knowledge together itself becomes inbred.
A lack of external input results in a stunting of progress much the same way as a small isolated population of inter-breeding organisms (genetically inbred) eventually becomes weak and susceptible to epidemics and inheritable diseases.
So consider, for example, what jcc says…
…and ask him a simple child-like question:
Where is the “credibility” of the Church derived from?
Explain please as if it was a 10-year-old who asks.
Because it becomes relevant to what you, Patricio, asserts here:
… which leads me scratching my head, because in the way you justify this “role” as moral beacon for our society, you use terms such as “path to salvation” and “pathway towards damnation” — concepts and constructs that originate from the Church itself. There’s a fallacy in there somewhere in your use of terms originating from the very entity you are trying to define or evaluate (circular definition or something to that effect).
As you can see, Patricio; conflict of interest, is written all over the Church. You yourself fell into the trap of using concepts the Church had so effectively culturally indoctrinated in you to evaluate it.
All you have to do is step outside the proverbial square to see it, dude.
It’s simple, really™
Yup. No disagreement there, bro. I totally agree with your “totalitarian system hence step out of that institution” thing. And yes, the Church has established itself as something like a moral beacon, because they are. I don’t need to be indoctrinated by the Church. They studied morality. They are trained in ethics. They even established the moral code based on valid observations about human behavior. So, what?
Morality does not prove the existence of a supernumerary; nor an omnicient being. Morality and ethics are norms. They are cultural norms which an organism, like the Church, established for itself and for those who believe in it.
Like I said, Benigno, we don’t have any debate on the principles of the Church. Your question–why do people accept the totalitarian nature of the Church borders on the very belief on which the Church was founded–it fosters a command structure. It promotes democratic centralism, like a Communist Party. Why? Because it positions itself as a paragon of morality because, really, it’s its function in society.
Can you point any other entity that acts and behaves like a morality paragon other than the Church?
by the way,
when one sins, it is actually a violation of the moral code, a set of established and well-defined norms that an individual should follow. why do people need to follow that code? because if not, we’ll all behave like brutes.
even rational behavior is not scientific; it is moral (or ethical, as Kant would say)
Unfortunately when you find that the religious brand sucks, there isn’t any way to
1) get your money back
2) get the DTI to remove the franchise or license.
Meatloaf has wisdom when he screams
“What about faith?
Its defective!
Its tattered and its frayed
What about your gods?
Theyre defective!
They forgot the warranty”
“Because they are”.
Begs the question, Patricio. So again I ask: Why are they? Who says so?
Where is this “credibility” derived from?
[I'd caution you in your response to the above as you are, as you mention earlier, an "avowed atheist"] ;)
Our the mantra that supposedly underpins our “democratic” sensibilities is “The people have spoken”. A famous rallying cry of the so-called maka-bayan lot. In theory, the popular will is what is — albeit arguably — ethical in a democratic society.
So here’s the thing. Apparently people have decided — as evident in the popular practice nowadays — to practice contraception. The church says it is “immoral”, but in theory it is ethical (remember: the people have spoken).
Are you gonna judge people who practice contraception using the “morality” of the Church, or the ethics of what the majority have decided?
as i’ve said, the moral code has been the established standard on what is wrong and what is right. It reflects observations on human behavior. and yes, the popular will is indeed ethical, no doubt about that.
the credibility of the Church as the moral beacon so to speak, lies in their discovery of these norms. i am quite surprised why our discussion shifted towards the contraceptives issue. It is not what we’re talking about here.
again, let me go to our discussion–who actually says what’s moral and ethical? Who has the monopoly of what is moral and what is not moral? Let’s just discuss this.
As you wish, Patricio. We can leave contraception out of this discussion. I use it merely to illustrate the point I wanted to make.
who actually says what’s moral and ethical? Who has the monopoly of what is moral and what is not moral?
Very good questions, Pat. If everyone agrees that the answer isnt the Creator, then the answer would have to be…
The fittest and most powerful, the leaders of men. That usually means the State, that entity with the army who has power to force us to work for it, to send our children to their deaths to fight its enemies. The State says what’s moral and what’s ethical. Which means, Heaven help us. Pat cautioned us what kind of morality is being ingrained in our citizens by our government and rightly so.
But, not to worry, even if the secular west has evicted God from government, our civilization still operates by the moral code belief in God left behind. As the philosopher Jurgen Habermas, an atheist, wrote:
Society, steeped in Christian ideals we inherited (though not necessarily believing in the source of those ideals), should assert itself against the power of the State. That’s what the Church is exhorting society to do, however ineptly. The Church itself needs reform, but its message is clear.
The Western civilization ideals of liberty, freedom, and democracy were foeunded on Greek city-states. “Render unto Ceasar what is Caesar’s …”
Indeed, the early Christian church was characterized by deceit, dicatorship and demagoguery.
It was Europeans’ attempt to re-enlighten themselves to the Democratic Values away from the Dark Ages that gave birth to Renaissance and Reformation.
The Western civilization ideals of liberty, freedom, and democracy were founded on Greek city-states.
Eh? The Greek city-states were not democracies in our present sense. They were aristocracies and oligarchies who didnt give ‘inferior-types’ a say. Slaves for instance. And women.
(Come to think of it, we’re an oligarchy and an aristocracy, so we really dont have the high ground to judge the democracy of the Greeks.)
But I’ll give you the Renaissance and the Reformation, which were anti-Catholic and not necessarily anti-Christian.
the crebility of the church is obvious. many people believe the church than the government institutions and all the bloggers in this site combined for the simple reason that the church speaks of a collecive common sense of piety, charity and godliness.
it is not because the people are ignorant. simple folks in the barrio think more lucidly than the pundits in this blog.
correction please, Religion is not a master piece of Brand Marketing but rather a Master piece of Brand Conditioning. It is a conditioning of the mind for very long period of time to get the result of sufficiently established beliefs. One way of influencing the mind is to make an individual independent in his economic environment to which he/she was formerly immune. Conditioning Brand is a long term investment. it will take a certain level of life achievement’s to truly understand and find the real truth- spirituality.
Life’s achievement is directly influenced by what is available within his/her environment. It’s our government who constantly fail and still practice multiple failures. These people are not humans :)
I’m telling you . benigno ( hehehe)
Ethics and morality are both codes. The difference is that in Modern Society, Ethics is internal to the System(s)(i.e. immanent) while Morality is external (i.e. transcendent or alien). (The analogy to the human body would be that ethics is like the DNA within the Cell while morality is an external virus, leftover from an earlier phase of evolution.)
The (sub-)System decides the ethical norm and chooses whether to practice it or not. Only in cases of breakdown does morality threaten come in which has mixed effects. As explained Niklas Luhman,
An example of a ‘metacode’ is the Roman Catholic Church and its belief system that threatens the functioning of modern institutions. Arguably, another example of a ‘metacode’ is People Power (EDSA, EDSA Dos and EDSA Tres).
morality is objective, not subjective. it’s not subject to approval or convention. “the people have spoken” is not a correct determinant for what is moral otherwise, the “people” who condemned Jesus and shouted “crucify him” would have been justified in the name of “morality”.
what is moral is not nullified or diminished by a refusal to recognize it, a desire to violate it, or it’s actual violation.
the church is not the exclusive repository of morality. it dwells in the heart and mind of every man, woman and child. whereas the laws’ sanction is the threat of loss of life, liberty or possession, the sanction of moral lies in the resulting damage to conscience and/or death of the soul.
“morality is objective, not subjective. it’s not subject to approval or convention. “the people have spoken” is not a correct determinant for what is moral otherwise, the “people” who condemned Jesus and shouted “crucify him” would have been justified in the name of “morality”. Bencard…
the people who condemned jesus is no different than the crowds in EDSA One and Dos. How often do we mistake these few vociferous segment of our society as the “people”.
while the church is not the exclusive repository of morality, majority of our people today, specially in the philippines, consider the church as one of the repositories of that morality, if not its guardian.
You just have to go on Sunday masses to find out that the faitfuls go in droves. The non-believers are free to brush this phenomenon aside as “blind” or “fanatical” obeisance of the “unwashed”, or the “uneducated” to their non-existing God. But I would like to think that majority of them are ordinary people who are not in the corridors of power, and therefore are pure and untainted by the greed and corruption of those who wield powers and dish out economic fortunes. I would love to be in their company than with those who mistake their arrogance for wisdom and their atheist position as absolute truth and the true guidepost for morality and exceptional human quality.
In order to begin to understand morality and ethics in Modern Society, the distinction between subjective and objective needs to be replaced with the distinction between systems and environment.