2012: Between Critical and Visionary Thinking

Interesting and congratulations on your book. Sparks immense curiosity.

For example, about your sense of the 'dangers' of cults, as alluded to in ref to Atheist Society -- and who/what Atheist Society?  

(Also, the brief mention of expectations about reception you touched on --intriguing notes sounded)

In context here, I assume 'cults' would refer to these exclusive, 'cult leader' based spiritual groups, types of NRMs (New Religious Movements as termed in academese).  A pattern we've seen proliferate in the post 1960's, post-psychedelic era. I.e., inspirational groups organized around and devoted to some leader or charismatic icon with a certain type message. Some of which have made dire, even shocking, headlines -- saran gas attacks in subways, 'mass suicides' like (Jonestown, Heaven's Gate - ETC).

Events and circumstances orbiting the 'cult' word (in this context) have drawn wide attention, tripping general concern and questions.  Not so much 'do you think the 2012 date will be the eschaton?'  More as to issues for society, "us and ours" -- critical interests of what's going on (something happening here)? At least, in the minds of many, if not all.

Of course, I'm sure the Heaven's Gators (for example) weren't so concerned about "your son, your daughter" drawn in, with whatever fallout.  I trust their interest was well taken up by cosmic matters of more ultimate meaning. Against which, 'friends and family' or relationships right here and now, may be held trivial, 'human drama' to be transcended -- or obstacles to transcendance, ties that bind 'in wrong way'; rather than our daily bread, the meat and potatoes of our mortal condition, human reality (or whatever).

Likewise, many beckoned by 2012 (in some ways at least) may not have in mind or entertain type questions I realize, reading your article.  That's among reasons I wonder what this atheist society you allude to has in mind.  Kina wish they were here to speak from their pov, reply or respond. See what they got to say for themselves 'in their own words ...' whoever they be.

Reading your interesting piece I also wondered: how might Wm James' distinction, religion of 'healthy mindedness' vs 'sick soul' -- apply to a concept of 'visionary thinking'?  As opposed to 'critical thinking'?  Per your theme.

Could there be a crucial difference between 'healthy' visionary thinking, and 'unhealthy'? The latter (presumably) raising issues such as an atheist society might have in mind, in reference to 'dangerous cults'?  

Among foundations of my curiosity here, is Festinger's famous study, relative to apocalyptic predictionizing, WHEN PROPHECY FAILS.  What would a healthy balance consist or look like, between critical thinking (keeping that phrase) -- and 'visionary thinking'?  Specifically, along lines of inspirational messages (a la "Everything You Know is Wrong!"), 'eye opening' revelations of impending Drastic Transformation, End-of-World, End-of-History, as in 2012 etc.  Especially, sourced to a Logos of some other oracular voice in someone's head?  At least, as according to an astounding 'mind-blowing' story, told with an air of earnest veracity, hyper-sincere tone.  The better for awestruck listeners to go 'wow' and heed.

And, as often - based on 'facts' that aren't factual; nor even intelligible in what they assert, taken at face value. it seems mere honesty is held frivolous, secondary -- when a message of cosmic over-arching scope and scale takes precedence.  I seldom see that cited as a factor of concern or issue, glad you did that.  Insofar as it doesn't help advance falsity, seems like honesty is disconstrued (if i may) -- like a red herring of 'physicalism' (declared null and void), or a hobgoblin of 'closed' i.e. critically unpersuaded inquiring minds - the type that want to know.

I've noticed some things along such lines too; like 'values obfuscation' (as opposed to clarification) if one might speak of such.  Many things ...

Thought-provoking article, interesting. As is the milieu of 2012ism; and a whole tapestry of related preoccupations, many psychedelia-related, patterned along fault lines of society and our times -- encompassing personal to political, secular to spiritual dimensions, individual and collective.

Seems 2012ism and such couldn't quite be defined as 'cults' due to lack of any such formal structure, organization. But in common, I find such pop 'fringe' preoccupations do express a 'community' aspect, often espouse such.  A fairly sharp rhetorical line drawn, of Us (as opposed to Them).

Likewise, impression: 2012 messages/'theories' and etc do often raise profound (even troubling?) questions I find, along psychosocial lines, viz. Festinger.  Not in terms of their substance -- like, whether we believe the prophecy (the world or history etc, is gonna change radically maybe even end on a certain date)?  Nor whether its true ("possibly") what 'the indigenous peoples' have widely predicted ... no, as you right note its not true or even honest.  

And not even untrue as a matter of some ancient prophecy being wrong.  Rather -- one of fallacious citation to something purported as such, pinned on other cultures.

Reality-questions I find emerging here have to do, rather, with consequences and fallout.  How exactly do such themes or messages ("This Changes Everything;" or will - "possibly") work, in effect?  With their urgent direction of interest to questions they ask us -- whether you believe or I believe its true; or 'could be' (unless we're so 'closed-minded' etc etc ...)?  Versus other questions we might realize for ourselves and ask, as self-directed (with or without approval of whoever else).

What are the costs and benefits of 2012ism and such, as it were?  What do such interests bode in toto; and how do they operate socially, culturally and psychologically -- on those of us compelled by them in whatever way.  Especially as ends that justify means, in directions our attention may not often be called to -- directions that some of us (not all) look closely, for various reasons.

Again congratulations on your book.  (Drew's right, Hoopes a plus for your book, very well-informed source, authoritative)