We belong to them - Page 3 - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
User avatar
By jakell
#14773696
One Degree wrote:I don't know how much of this is deliberate, but it is something I enjoy thinking and theorizing about. Take the more extreme posters for example. We know that everything we know is stored along with sights, smells, sounds, and emotions that occurred at the time we learned each thing. Does this mean our more extreme views were learned from very emotional presentations? We are resistant to changing them due to the emotion embedded with them? This is of course why emotional propaganda can have such long term effects. Is it possible for us to even have an unbiased thought considering how we store information? Curious to hear other opinions.

Edit: I often think of @Rhetoric Thugs posts in relation to this. The media message is saturated with emotional triggers.


I would say that we don't need to have unbiased thoughts, or rather the hunt for them is always going to be fruitless considering how we interact with data and information.

The next best thing (which IMO is our only option) is to understand our biases and emotional triggers and therefore learn to come at the issues from different angles. One of the simplest and most powerful triggers is the pushing of a binary (attraction/repulsion) attitude, this is so powerful that it can be used in the vast majority of cases without any more nuance being needed.
A tool to use against this is described in the article I cited in the OP of 'Is Three a Magic Number?, it seems a simplistic approach, but sometimes a simple tool is the most effective foil to a simple strategy, no matter how powerful.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14773698
jakell wrote:I would say that we don't need to have unbiased thoughts, or rather the hunt for them is always going to be fruitless considering how we interact with data and information.

The next best thing (which IMO is our only option) is to understand our biases and emotional triggers and therefore learn to come at the issues from different angles. One of the simplest and most powerful triggers is the pushing of a binary (attraction/repulsion) attitude, this is so powerful that it can be used in the vast majority of cases without any more nuance being needed.
A tool to use against this is described in the article I cited in the OP of 'Is Three a Magic Number?, it seems a simplistic approach, but sometimes a simple tool is the most effective foil to a simple strategy, no matter how powerful.


I will concede I can not think of any better approach. I find this approach lacking in our ability to actually implement it, but as you said, what other option is there? On a less serious note, I was sidetracked by his following example...
What Thoreau would have thought of all this, while stepping out of his shack at Walden Pond with an ax in his hand to split firewood in the chill October air, does not bear imagining.


All I could think about while reading the rest of the article was how Thoreau's neighbors considered him a lazy leech and how unlikely it was he ever picked up an ax. :lol:

Edit: @jakell After a couple of beers to lubricate my imagination and release my ego, I believe I have some ability to separate 'truth' from it's emotional jailers. The Magic 3 could be considered empathy. If we become adept at empathy, then our default will be a third position. Maybe we do posses the ability to separate that which appears inseparable. Fantasy or possiblity? :hmm:

Edit 2: Are psychopaths the truly sane people?
Psychopaths do not show a differential brain response to emotional terms over neutral terms that normal people do (Williamson et al., 1991). They also have trouble understanding metaphors and abstract words.

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/mi ... ychopath-0
User avatar
By jakell
#14773765
I'm intending to come back to Greer's article on the 'Three' thread at some time in the future, but this time regarding his particular take on magic. That has involved me going back to the beginning of that series (starts with Clarke's Fallacy), I've also got a bit sidetracked with some of his other stuff.

Regarding this thread, I notice that he does dwell on evolutionary psychology, which is what I suggested QatzelOk use as one angle when fleshing out his theory about how humans have been artificially selected for certain traits by our 'masters'.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14773766
The point that Jackell asked me to "prove" was that humans have been selecting for artificial, socially-constructed criteria for the last few thousand years. "Does he have enough money to support a happy, Christian family?" "Is she beautiful like the women in mass media that I've been exposed to?" Etc.

I don't really need to prove this, unless you are totally unable to think critically.

And if you aren't, then I think YOU belong to them. They have made us idiots who can't understand anything unless there are "facts" presented to us by well-paid spokesmodels.

Likewise, your inability to accept "emotions" in arguments is because you've been trained to think that emotions belong on advertisements, and not on reasoned arguments.

But if something is really scary or dangerous, it deserves to solicit an emotional response.

People with money (the Elites) have learned that hiding emotions is the way to profit the most from other people. It's a way of "holding your cards close to you." Thus, we are encouraged to "have no emotions" unless advertisements (or sports, or wars) provoke them.

Belonging to the Rich means that the rich can bomb your society whenever they want. This is because the well-paid attack dogs that they send over to reinforce their ownership of your society (you included) also "belong to them." And these attack dogs have been trained to feel no emotions about this, and to wait for instructions and explanations from well-paid spokesmen.

Belonging to them also means having no natural feelings or thoughts. It's all constructed to please the people you belong to.

And most rich people also "belong" to someone else.
User avatar
By jakell
#14773777
QatzelOk wrote:The point that Jackell asked me to "prove" was that humans have been selecting for artificial, socially-constructed criteria for the last few thousand years. "Does he have enough money to support a happy, Christian family?" "Is she beautiful like the women in mass media that I've been exposed to?" Etc.

I don't really need to prove this, unless you are totally unable to think critically.....


I haven't asked you to prove anything. i just thought you might want to support your claim, that's usually what people do when they have an idea they are keen on. One of the easiest approaches is describing what encouraged you along that line of thinking in the first place, this is what I try to do... show my working.

Like I said though, evolution and evolutionary psychology would be your best points of focus, nothing like a bit of science to get those data points in a row.


ETA: Just noticed that you have altered your original claim a bit. Originally you said that it was the 'elites' who have been doing this. Now you say 'humans' it is more along the lines of co-selection, which is what I suggested.
#14773809
QatzelOk wrote:In many cases, Belong-to-Other humans have killed healthier and more sustainable human societies, thus accelerating their own extinction. Of course, this is unknowingly. Because specialized human pets can't know anything about how to survive - only how to compete for the approval of their masters.

This is the major flaw in specialization and social hierarchy. It leads to environmental vandalism and extinction.


Just curious, but do you have an alternative in mind? I thought you were talking about suburbia and lawns, but evidently you have something more comprehensive for us.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14773820
quetzalcoatl wrote:Just curious, but do you have an alternative in mind? I thought you were talking about suburbia and lawns, but evidently you have something more comprehensive for us.

Suburbia and lawns are just a symptom of how stupid and self-harming domesticated animals are.

These dumb domesticated animals also DEFEND the horrible life conditions that their masters have ordained, which is even sicker than the lawns and suburban isolation itself. It's like listening to dogs explain the importance of leashes and training as being "for all our welfare."

The alternative to not belonging to someone else is... freedom. Obviously, we domesticated dogs feel more comfortable with Jeep Liberties and Freebasing than we do with losing our leashes, but that's what suburbia and car culture amount to - a leash for the 99%. Which they have learned to defend by watching ruling-class-owned media (training).

jackall wrote:I haven't asked you to prove anything. i just thought you might want to support your claim, that's usually what people do when they have an idea they are keen on.

Having to "support" (or prove) that marriage is a social construct is not necessary at all. It clearly is. This isn't "my idea" any more than gravity is "my concept" that I need to prove before moving on. You seem to be obstructing more than anything else, which isn't a truth-seeking tactic so much as a stifling one.

Natural, non-civilized humans enjoyed sexual relations without marriage - like all other animals - and all shared responsibility for the offspring. Marriage was invented so that the Elite could build a multi-generational dynasty (so they could live forever as a text somewhere - the Willy Rosenburg Memorial Library Extension) and not have to support (pay for) other people's children.

Marriage is all about ownership. It's about "belonging" to someone else... on many levels.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14773822
The alternative to not belonging to someone else is... freedom.


Are you suggesting anarchy or something else?
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14773826
One Degree wrote:Are you suggesting anarchy or something else?

Anarchy is what civilized man is moving the world towards right now.

There is a perfect order to nature, and it shouldn't be called anarchy. I think the word "anarchy" was probably dreamed up by control freaks (elites) to give natural order a bad name.

And because you and I belong to the elites, we are forced to chew on their disgusting words.
User avatar
By One Degree
#14773831
QatzelOk wrote:Anarchy is what civilized man is moving the world towards right now.

There is a perfect order to nature, and it shouldn't be called anarchy. I think the word "anarchy" was probably dreamed up by control freaks (elites) to give natural order a bad name.

And because you and I belong to the elites, we are forced to chew on their disgusting words.


We do like to attach emotion to words, but I was using it as a neutral word for living without authority. It is a difficult concept to grasp in relationship to what most of us expect from societal living standards.
User avatar
By jakell
#14773832
QatzelOk wrote:Having to "support" (or prove) that marriage is a social construct is not necessary at all. It clearly is. This isn't "my idea" any more than gravity is "my concept" that I need to prove before moving on. You seem to be obstructing more than anything else, which isn't a truth-seeking tactic so much as a stifling one.


You've shifted yet again. You started off by claiming that we had undergone selective breeding by the elites in order to make us more malleable, and now you have moved this to something about marriage.

I'm quite interested in your original claim, although it probably belongs in 'Conspiracy Theories', and was looking forward to you fleshing it out. The people who claim we have been engineered by aliens don't seem to mind supporting what they say and I don't really understand your reluctance.
User avatar
By quetzalcoatl
#14773855
Not belonging to the elites and achieving freedom are a bit nebulous for most people. They will want to understand what is it you are asking people to do, and what your vision of a better world is. Sometimes being overly cryptic just confuses people.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14773868
quetzalcoatl wrote:Not belonging to the elites and achieving freedom are a bit nebulous for most people..

I'm not trying to convince 'most people.' I'm addressing a limited group on a philosophy discussion forum, not running for office.

jakell wrote:You've shifted yet again

I just can't seem to restrict myself to gardening. Perhaps philosophy demands vast general knowledge and not narrow specialization ?

You started off by claiming that we had undergone selective breeding by the elites in order to make us more malleable, and now you have moved this to something about marriage.

These two things are closely related. Having to support their own biological children forces adults to choose mates in a socially constructed (fake) way.

I'm quite interested in your original claim, although it probably belongs in 'Conspiracy Theories', and was looking forward to you fleshing it out. The people who claim we have been engineered by aliens don't seem to mind supporting what they say and I don't really understand your reluctance.

This passage suggests that you don't value philosophy, and are just trying to obstruct its proliferation with smears.

Maybe you can attack spelling and punctuation next?

Who do your texts belong to exactly ?
User avatar
By jakell
#14773869
jakell wrote:You started off by claiming that we had undergone selective breeding by the elites in order to make us more malleable, and now you have moved this to something about marriage.

QatzelOk wrote:These two things are closely related. Having to support their own biological children forces adults to choose mates in a socially constructed (fake) way.


It seems now that you have gone off the notion that we have been selectively bred by elites, and are now simply referring to our own agency in these things.

That's rather less interesting and I am disappointed.
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14773969
jakell wrote:It seems now that you have gone off the notion that we have been selectively bred by elites, and are now simply referring to our own agency in these things.

Marriage and fidelity were forced on the poor by the rich. They're not about agency at all. I can't think of any men that "chose" fidelity.
The rich simply didn't want to care of all the kids that sedentary nobodies would create, and they thought that by limiting their own sexuality to other rich kids, they'd "create" a super-breed of human supermen.

This hasn't happened, and to even try it is extremely destructive.

But that was the thinking among elites right up until (and after) Darwin. Even the notion of "social Darwinism" is a reference to breeding a super-human race via selective criteria that have NOTHING to do with nature or surviving nature. It's all about surviving Goldman Sachs and neoliberalism.

Belonging to them means that we are FORCED to participate in all their failed experiments that are, in the end, based on vanity and an inflated sense of self-importance. This is a suicidal submission because, as life conditions deteriorate (because of their past failed experiments), they become increasingly violent and unwise and accelerate the harm that they have already caused. I think we're seeing this in many governments of rich nations: Super-rich elites freaking out about how all their failed social changes have lead to writing on all the walls.
User avatar
By MB.
#14773977
There is a grassroots reaction to the unilateral domination of the capitalist vision for society. For example, I often cite the case of MIT technologist Steve Mann who is credited with the concept of sousveillance in response to the pervasive surveillance state. He is also known for his eye-tap hardware that can create mediated reality in which things like corporate advertising can be erased.



I also point to Julian Assange's one time television program, the World Tomorrow, and in particular the Cypher Punks episode, that provided an example of, again, how one can undermine or challenge the capitalist doctrine and reality through information exchange and technique:



To a certain extent, politicsforum.org is part of this reaction to the ideological dominance of capitalist doctrine: anyone committing their time to content creation on PoFo is indirectly challenging the establishment's vast effort to brainwash the population with advertising and entertainment garbage.
#14773983
How ironic; Reuters is Jewish owned propaganda platform. (source: Gold and Iron)

how far can we trust this media? What is implied by it's reporting? (are they controlling 'subversive' media, feeding us just enough 'alternative' information to keep us feeling rebellious, all the while withholding the more insidious truth at bay?)
User avatar
By MB.
#14773985
This question about information trust and the utility of news media has been cropping up rather a lot on pofo over the last few months. As a useful rule of thumb, I think it's best to accept that you will receive some programming and disinformation in your quest for useful information and news. However, through the process of discovery and investigation, one becomes better equipped to identify disinformation, so as long as you continue to research and investigate, you should, in the main, be able to avoid becoming trapped in a misinformation echo-chamber.

The real issue, I find, is that there is a large number of people who want to be in the echo chamber. For some reason, they feel comfortable when the information they receive is carefully orchestrated to achieve a certain objective. One must be careful not to become cynical: avoiding anything to do with corporate advertising is important, and identifying entertainment media that is actaully propaganda and therefore avoiding it is also crucial.

But do not allow yourself to become hopelessly tangled in a pysiwarops counterintelligence program when seeking "the truth"- conspiracies can be fun, but if you get trapped in the echo-chamber you've lost perspective.
User avatar
By jakell
#14774040
QatzelOk wrote:Marriage and fidelity were forced on the poor by the rich. They're not about agency at all. I can't think of any men that "chose" fidelity.
The rich simply didn't want to care of all the kids that sedentary nobodies would create, and they thought that by limiting their own sexuality to other rich kids, they'd "create" a super-breed of human supermen.

This hasn't happened, and to even try it is extremely destructive.

But that was the thinking among elites right up until (and after) Darwin. Even the notion of "social Darwinism" is a reference to breeding a super-human race via selective criteria that have NOTHING to do with nature or surviving nature. It's all about surviving Goldman Sachs and neoliberalism.

Belonging to them means that we are FORCED to participate in all their failed experiments that are, in the end, based on vanity and an inflated sense of self-importance. This is a suicidal submission because, as life conditions deteriorate (because of their past failed experiments), they become increasingly violent and unwise and accelerate the harm that they have already caused. I think we're seeing this in many governments of rich nations: Super-rich elites freaking out about how all their failed social changes have lead to writing on all the walls.


Ah... shotgun weddings, en masse and as a matter of course it seems.

This is a very interesting theory but would be difficult to gather data on. Possibly a collection of wedding photographs would help us decide whether the couples were under duress or not, the cracks would start to show.

As to the 'elites' becoming angry as life conditions deteriorate, well surely this is a sufficient explanation in itself and doesn't need any fanciful notions about marriage and artificial selection, those who have become accustomed to control and the ability to predict behaviours will not relinquish it lightly.
As you can see, I'm using Occam's here.

(starting to sound a lot more like 'Conspiracy Theory' material and not Philosophy)
User avatar
By QatzelOk
#14774371
jakell wrote:As you can see, I'm using Occam's here.

Actually, you are using the opposite of Occam's Razor. Rather than looking for the simplest solution ("We belong to them" - four words), you are trying to drown out this Philosophical discussion with needless tangents about gardening and the non-existence of Elites (ie."they're like ghosts and aliens").

I think you're demonstrating that belonging to other people is the reason for ideology. Sedentary slaves require sedentary ideas.

It is implausible that the IDF could not or would[…]

Moving on to the next misuse of language that sho[…]

@JohnRawls What if your assumption is wrong??? […]

There is no reason to have a state at all unless w[…]