Saturday, January 22, 2011

From Self-deception to Fellowship

In my early years the works of rebel scientists filled my imagination. I saw several original thinkers that produced novel observations, yet were reduced into expressing the observations through the existing context, rather than finding a better medium for explaining the observation. While the observations seemed legitimate, it was still the case that, without a better theoretical underpinning, there was little chance of refining the observed effect. So I ‘made up’ (cobbled together) my own idiosyncratic physics model, and realized soon how incompatible it was with existing theories.

During this time, engagement with others could be quite pointless as I saw how identified people are to their education. The idea then struck me that knowledge that came too quickly would pervert the process of integration. It might produce yet another bastard child. Plus, I realized that because consciousness comes before its productions, the better place for ones focus is on consciousness. So even though I had a bad attitude to philosophy, because I thought of it as ‘toadies rationalizing the power pretences of their sponsors’, i retreated to this and to history and history of religion. Every narrative has its limitations but with discernment, the false and small narratives may add up to a larger coherent narrative.

New context creation is far more relevant at this point, than are new discoveries.
_________________

My efforts towards creating a new context centers around reformulating the meaning content of certain settled upon concepts. Every day we see the meaning content of various facts being twisted to conform to the needs of self serving actors. (Hamas/rockets/civilians> justified response). So the dog that doesn’t bark is more informative than most standard (vested interest) contrived commentary.

A different read on the archetypes may help to define a new context (psychical conditioning system). This is my humble contribution, please deconstruct as you feel necessary.

I think that the conditions in society reflect our misunderstanding of the archetypes. We have dreamed up an adversary to God and thereby, split reality. This seems understandable, in that things appear dualistically. But if we can create a psychical conditioning system that draws focus to the continuum, (self and other) rather than self vs. other, we may yet find a way through this maze.

The natural impulse of authority structures is to suppress ‘enthusiasm’. It is simply a perceived requirement for more efficient administration of large groups. Authorities also know that some enthusiasm is necessary to inspire and generate energy for larger purposes. No doubt 'authorities' will try to influence, direct or front run inevitable expressions of enthusiasm. But try as they might, this is not their natural world, and the enthusiasm of the masses may at any time find a point of focus and a methodology that can tame the depredations of corruption that are inherent in a mutual blackmail society.

By nature some folk are inclined to conform while others relate their identity to questioning and rebelling. The two styles of thinking can respect the legitimate element within the contrasting style. However for mysterious reasons there seems to be little space for this kind of observation in the mind of most partisans. Anyway this seems odd to me, and/or a perfect reason for self-deception to flourish, which it will as long as we mistake style as being substance. Then again, how does one not play to the audience? Fortunately a large share of humanity is driven by fellowship rather than a need to impose. This cohort will find its voice when it recognizes that current systems for organizing thought gives power to extremists, the very people that do not have the common interest in their heart.

Cut to the chase.

The positive polarity of order/religion/Ahriman/dogma is that it provides basis for the Law and repetition. The positive polarity of liberty/enthusiasm/Lucifer/imagination is the energy it provides for change. We need repetition to give ourselves time to internalize the stuff we learn and we need to apply imagination to reassess what we ‘think’ we have learned. Some of us however in becoming overly identified with one or the other impulse, unconsciously become propagandists for a false narrative (and thereby provoke negative relations between order and liberty). This game will be spoiled as we consciously recognize our unconsciousness drivers.

Of course there are interests (in us even), that cannot bear to see this game end and though I love this game, I’m confident the next will be even better.

Monday, January 17, 2011

Decision Making Time

I want to point to two recent events to add a ‘glass half full’ element to the following somewhat harrowing account of how power comes to be abused. ‘Law enforcement’ type people are sometimes at least drawn to the profession because they respect the value of law and limits. So that, despite how corrupt a system may be, at some point, the rank and file of this enforcement system might get tired of the liberties taken by their superiors. In Italy right now the police seem to be collecting evidence for crimes of their head of state. Also, if reports are correct, in Tunisia the military seems to be protecting the population from roving internal security squads. If the legitimacy of power were to be undermined, possibly the enforcers of law could direct more attention toward justice and general social good, rather than the corrupting demands of authoritarian sociopathic bosses.

“All experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.”

Thomas Jefferson


People grasp to the old forms as long as the vision that creates the new form remains quiescent or ill focused. Because new forms inevitably displace entrenched power interests, its backing will come from the zeitgeist rather than from more derivative intellectual constructs. Ideas presented out of context seldom go far, but ideas whose time has come will not be stopped by all the armies of the world. Our aim then should be to find ideas that better match our time.

As more people realize that their suffering seems to be advancing beyond bearable, we need all the more, a framework that will encourage productive decision making among all sectors of society. The other option is chaos and death, and who really wants to deal with that. I mean its one thing when C&D can be compartmentalized and localized upon some distant shore, but it’s not so fun when the shit goes global.


The following is from a four part series of articles that deal with issues of power and subjugation. The author, Davi Barker builds his arguments around the Milgram and other guard/prisoner role playing experiments.

Thanks also to 23 for posting this article at RI.

http://www.examiner.com/muslim-in-san-francisco/authoritarian-sociopathy-part-4-power-and-hypocrisy

"The fifth and final experiment yielded, by far, the most interesting results of all the experiments we’ve discussed, and it is my hope that this is the direction that this type or research takes in the future. The feeling of power was induced the same as the first and third experiment, where participants were asked to describe their own experience of power in their own life, with one important distinction. In this experiment the “high-power” class was divided into two, one group which was asked to describe an experience where they felt their power was legitimate and deserved, and one group which was asked to describe an experience where they felt their power was illegitimate and undeserved.

The hypocrisy results found in the previous four experiments emerged only when high-power subjects viewed their power as legitimate. Those who viewed their power as illegitimate actually gave the opposite results, a sort of anti-hypocrisy, which researches dubbed, “hypercrisy.” They were harsher about their own transgressions, and more lenient toward others.

This discovery could be the silver bullet that society has been searching for to put down the werewolf of political corruption. The researches speculate that the vicious cycle of power and hypocrisy could be broken by attacking the legitimacy of power, rather than the power itself. As they write in their conclusion:

A question that lies at the heart of the social sciences is how this status-quo (power inequality) is defended and how the powerless come to accept their disadvantaged position. The typical answer is that the state and its rules, regulations, and monopoly on violence coerce the powerless to do so. But this cannot be the whole answer...

Our last experiment found that the spiral of inequality can be broken, if the illegitimacy of the power-distribution is revealed. One way to undermine the legitimacy of authority is open revolt, but a more subtle way in which the powerless might curb selfenrichment by the powerful is by tainting their reputation, for example by gossiping. If the powerful sense that their unrestrained selfenrichment leads to gossiping, derision, and the undermining of their reputation as conscientious leaders, then they may be inspired to bring their behavior back to their espoused standards. If they fail to do so, they may quickly lose their authority, reputation, and— eventually—their power.

In this series we have seen that those given power are more likely to lie, cheat and steal with impunity while also being harsher in their judgements of others for doing these things. We have seen that those given power feel less compassion for the suffering of others, and are even capable of the torture and murder of innocent people. What’s perhaps most disturbing is that we have seen that these sociopathic tendencies have been fostered in otherwise psychologically healthy people. In other words, the problem is not only that sociopaths are drawn to positions of authority, but that positions of authority draw out the sociopath in everyone. But this final experiment offers some hope that authoritarian sociopathy can not only be stopped, but driven into reverse, not by violence or revolution, but simply by undermining their sense of legitimacy".


This is good material although (I really must say) gossip would seem to provide poor leverage when pitted against the machinations of power.

I wrote a paper back in the day called Voice of the Ineffable. It represented some conclusions derived from or responding to a ten year study of a wide variety of thinking. The product is a methodology that aids in decision making by identifying the source of corruption within the thought process. It points to a mechanism whereby, through resonance, the pre-manifest is tied to and engages dynamically with the manifest.

Voice of the Ineffable was re-written as Creativity Unleashed (posted on this site), and while I use different terminology now, I still like the content and structure of the paper.

The criteria for understanding that is proposed in that essay tends to cultivate fellowship and to undermine extremism as the hidden basis for asserting a sense of legitimacy to power. The ideas are not put forward as being ‘truth’, instead they are presented as a spur to imagination so that together we may build new systems for understanding where the information content of our perceptions become enabled to provide new levels and layers of meaning.

Saturday, January 15, 2011

Frontier science

This kind of thing gives the public at least some chance to have an idea about how far the military is ahead of public science.

I will add to and edit later, great stuff check it out.


Saturday, January 8, 2011

What I am Trying to Do

A truth that's told with bad intent, Beats all the lies you can invent.

Always be ready to speak your mind and a base man will avoid you.

Energy is eternal delight.

He who desires, but acts not, breeds pestilence.

I must create a system, or be enslaved by another man's.

I myself do nothing. The Holy Spirit accomplishes all through me.

Innocence dwells with Wisdom, but never with Ignorance.


William Blake

The necessary information is out there. There are excellent analysis from the mundane to the economic to the esoteric out here on these intertubes. Even establishment ‘sources’ provide much information if one is practiced in how to connect the dots despite living in the shadow of a false narrative. There is a hazard however in our inclination to ‘put’ any new information, as quickly as we can, into our existing perceptual processing system. Whether that be ideological, religious, humanist or even yankee-yahoo. All these things become ones ‘priest’ or mediator between the information and the receiver.

One result then is that consciousness comes to be used as a limiter rather than as a force for development and evolution. Various tribes may have differently placed firewalls, but they all discount the whole so they may aggrandize some ‘special’ part. But if say, Source is information, then while it flows everywhere, the recognition of it is limited by any shortcoming in the processing efficiency of the individual receiver.

Processing efficiency seems to get limited by potential breath of correspondences within any given set of categories. If one is going literal in finding meaning content within the verses of the Bible for instance, then connections generated by symbols, metaphor and myth, will likely be given short shrift. Then on the other side, the humanists do themselves no favor by also denying general meaning content to ‘metaphysical’ ruminations. Harvard positivists being one form of this dysfunctionality producing value set, providing us with many leading lights of society, along with Ted Kaczynski, don’t forget Ted.

Observation shows that most people use their intellect to fit info bits into their belief system. That’s poor usage of the intellects potential. We could use the intellect to refine our beliefs but there is that little issue of ego. It’s insecure so it tries to ‘fix’ the category, as in make hard, resulting in the personality expressing itself through reactivity instead of being a creative expression of essential self.

A basic assertion of this blog writing is that there must be better models for understanding reality and that we are obligated to direct our attention toward creating those models, perhaps along with a more effective psychical conditioning system to assist in their production.

If existing ‘facts’ do not fit in our containers, then we need to build new containers.

Wednesday, January 5, 2011

Raising Children

http://www.rigorousintuition.ca/board2/viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26332&hilit=child+rearing+thread

From the; ‘we need to figure this thing out’ thread

My wife and I had a fairly simple recipe for how we raised our two daughters. It derives from certain opinions I have in regard to the nature of being.

Back in the day our friends with kids were Buddhists and co-oper type liberals and hippies. Their kids are grown now also and have turned out well (for the most part), but, Oh the drama, in getting there. My friends did not care much for my theories so I did not push them, but time has vindicated this approach, at least in my mind.

First I will describe the ‘recipe’ and its basis, and then I can go on about implications (till the cows come home.)

The recipe relies on getting in synch with the changing nature and current level of development of consciousness. When children are young they look to the parent to inform them about this new big big world that can in fact be very confusing. Having clear boundary conditions helps the young child develop stable self-image. This involves simple things like not eating on the couch, picking up toys, consistent bedtime, being polite, etc. It is also good for young children to know that they do not get things simply because they want them. No problem there as we were of modest means anyway.

The key to this recipe is that the manner of interaction changes as soon as the analytical mind of the child starts to kick in, usually around seven years of age. At this point the ingredients for growing a stable and healthy self-image in the child changes. We learn by making decisions and the more practice one has the more confidence one will have. Transferring decision making opportunities to the child early, but not too early, provides many benefits. There is validation for practice and an implied assumption that you are responsible for what you make of your life. But the best part is that the child is not inclined to internal dialogue that lives in resentment of external impositions. They will also sub-consciously retain the stable boundary conditions because they were not brought into question along with a bunch of other bullshit parental impositions.

In our household there was no teenage rebellion, as there was nothing to rebel against, and very little drama. I became a master of distraction with the most extreme form of discipline being what I called ‘the talking cure’. I will admit that it was a bit self indulgent as it involved a monologue with big words and abstract treatment of various philosophical concepts. The older daughter, being rather conventional (NT) in her mentality, did not much care for my ramblings, but our younger daughter thanked me years later after receiving compliments from teachers and realizing that she has a large vocabulary. Appeals for word definitions were after all a legitimate means for stopping or at least creating a break in my mad monologues. I think this mostly was the preferred coping mechanism for my wife. (My wife and daughter are in the room as I write this. I was laughing as the preceding sentences were written so I read a bit back to them, they seemed to approve.)

Even though our second daughter is quite an underachiever, both daughters have done quite well at finding ‘happy places’ in this weird world. While one daughter is conservative and religious and the other is liberal and atheist, we all get along fine and both agree and understand about my opinions in regard to child rearing, (and this makes me a very happy grandpa). In my world, how a person thinks matters more than what a person thinks.

It may be noticed that this is different from both liberal and conservative child rearing styles. Imo, the liberal is too loose with children when they are young and conservatives are too controlling for too long. The liberal will often realize too late, a need to rein the child in. Too bad, so sad. Without early and clear boundaries the child is left with a need to test and push at everything. How else are they to learn the difference between right and wrong, if the parent never (fucking) told them? The conservative on the other hand tends to impose the boundary conditions abusively and for too long, producing cowed conformists or flaming rebels. And it’s all done with the best of intentions.

There are similarities in why and how social institutions and insecure parents abuse their authority. Both tend to inhibit possibilities that result from a naturally developing consciousness. There would seem to be an inherent desire to minimize the value of any possibilities that may threaten the institutions credibility or existence. Institutions then tend to ‘fix’ belief in a way similar to the individual clinging to (and imposing on children) belief in order to cover up some existential insecurity.

As above, so below.


I should probably stop now, but thanks to all for considering, disputing or examining further implications of these ideas.

Tuesday, January 4, 2011

Smart Enough to be Dangerous

I was reading the blog of Julian Assange yesterday (Jan 2) where he had posted some material relating to the tendency of smart people to be socially maladjusted. My position has long been that ‘smart’ people are not that much smarter than the average person and that the pride that some smart people exhibit is debilitating and a limiter toward ones own growth. While the frustration that smart people have in regard connecting with ‘lesser lights’ need not be discounted, still if one is so smart, why do so many revel in their frustration rather than finding ways to work around the issue?

My young experience was one where my father and later my older brother allowed themselves to get beat up by life because they did not accept the seeming disconnect between their intelligence and what they were able to get out of life. It was very useful to have had them as both guru and anti-guru for the development of my own strategy toward life, so I send blessings from the heart any time I think of them. Yet the sad truth is that most trouble in this world is caused by smart people that are overinvested in convincing the world and themselves that they are smarter than they really are. The fact is we all have limitations in efficiency for the firing of our neurons. It’s called consciousness and it’s largely bounded by consensual representations and our context for operations.

Possibly I’m simply being contrary to assert that ‘smart’ people are not much different than average people. However it seems reasonable to think that the difference is in volume of content and not difference in kind. Sure, smart people know more things, big deal, now prove how really smart you are by helping to show better ways to navigate this labyrinth of circumstance. Instead more often the smart types apply their neuronal energy in enforcing or at least promoting the existing context and understanding of reality, because I suppose that this is how they maintain their stature of being ‘smart’.

The preceding was written as a response to reading the following. More is included than originally intended because these adjustment problems are worth reflecting on. My suggestion is that if smart people want a genuine challenge they may want to turn their focus toward the creation of a new psychical conditioning system so that all of us might find better ways to distill information out of our perceptions.

http://web.archive.org/web/20071020051936/http://iq.org/#WilliamJamesSidis

One of the problems faced by all gifted persons is learning to focus their efforts for prolonged periods of time. Since so much comes easily to them, they may never acquire the self-discipline necessary to use their gifts to the fullest. Hollingworth describes how the habit begins.

Where the gifted child drifts in the school unrecognized, working chronically below his capacity (even though young for his grade), he receives daily practice in habits of idleness and daydreaming. His abilities never receive the stimulus of genuine challenge, and the situation tends to form in him the expectation of an effortless existence [3, p. 258].

A second adjustment problem faced by all gifted persons is due to their uncommon versatility. Hollingworth says:

Another problem of development with reference to occupation grows out of the versatility of these children.

A third problem faced by the gifted is learning to suffer fools gladly. Hollingworth notes:

A lesson which many gifted persons never learn as long as they live is that human beings in general are inherently very different from themselves in thought, in action, in general intention, and in interests. Many a reformer has died at the hands of a mob which he was trying to improve in the belief that other human beings can and should enjoy what he enjoys. This is one of the most painful and difficult lessons that each gifted child must learn, if personal development is to proceed successfully. It is more necessary that this be learned than that any school subject be mastered. Failure to learn how to tolerate in a reasonable fashion the foolishness of others leads to bitterness, disillusionment, and misanthropy [3, p. 259].

But if the exceptionally gifted is isolated from his contemporaries, the gulf between him and the adult authorities in his life is even deeper.

The very gifted child or adolescent, perceiving the illogical conduct of those in charge of his affairs, may turn rebellious against all authority and fall into a condition of negative suggestibility--a most unfortunate trend of personality, since the person is then unable to take a cooperative attitude toward authority. A person who is highly suggestible in a negative direction is as much in bondage to others around him as is the person who is positively suggestible. The social value of the person is seriously impaired in either case. The gifted are not likely to fall victims to positive suggestion but many of them develop negativism to a conspicuous degree [3, p 260].

Anyone reading the super high IQ journals is aware of the truth of this statement. Negative individuals abound in every high IQ society.

So, is this negativity manifesting itself in credit default swaps and more efficient devices for control and killing? Is this a sensible response from ‘smart’ people to having been picked on in school? The reactive mind expressions of ‘smart’ people kill more people than any school yard bully could ever dream of harassing.