[jakell]

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.

You are making a common mistake associated with Occam's and that is that if something is easy to phrase then that means it is simple, as in your four-worder above. We see the same thing happen with mythological and intuitive explanations.. they sit well with us but that doesn't make them simple.
The reason that they look simple is because they are packed with abbreviated meaning that is part of our cultural understanding and we (unconsciously?) translate this as we consider it. Unpacked they are not at all simple.

Using the above example we have two alternatives (I'm sure more could be imagined though):

1) Humans and their societies have developed organically using already outlined and commonplace mechanisms of physical and psychological evolution.

2) We have been engineered by outside sources. (Elites being considered to be 'outside' here)

The second one looks simpler, but needs to evoke a ghost in the machine, so it actually raises more questions than it answers and needs further unpacking. Out of the two here, the first satisfies Occam's.

[jakell]

I shouldn't have used the term 'psychological evolution' so casually in the above. Even though evolutionary psychology is a fascinating field it's still pretty speculative and open-ended, we also don't have a useful amount of data because it can only really be broached properly by looking at humans and maybe the higher primates too.
I think I included it to create a connection with QatzelOk's theories of us being psychologically manipulated.

The mechanisms of evolution and behaviourism are pretty well understood though and there we have a vastly wider set of data to consider. Higher psychological functions can be manipulated via strong basic drives, it's just that it's a very crude tool with the possibility of unintended consequences

[QatzelOk]

...2) We have been engineered by outside sources. (Elites being considered to be 'outside' here)

The second one looks simpler, but needs to evoke a ghost in the machine, so it actually raises more questions than it answers and needs further unpacking. Out of the two here, the first satisfies Occam's.

The "ghost in the machine" is social hierarchy. It is maintained by disciplinary institutions (Michel Foucault) that work as forms of torture and dog-training, such as the church, schools, mental illness accusations, and the police/military. And the violence that is involved in keeping certain people submissive.... enslaves everyone in the system through fear and resentment and the disciplinary institutions that are created to maintain the inequality.

Social hierarchy is no ghost. It's part of every civilization. All behaviors are restricted, and certain behaviors are rewarded. Like treats and slaps to a dog one is training.

You're arguing that we need more data, when you're not even willing to examine the evidence that is right in front of you and not difficult to decipher at all. It's like you need to see a measure of the "belonging-to-them molecules per million particles of reality" which is demanding hard science from philosophy. If you want to see that we belong to them, just look at how miserable most people are after they buy into something that's been promoted by commercial media. Or how fake most people's opinions are, and how little they know about life-threatening things in their own system. This is pet behavior.

What's difficult is leaving the bubble of practical concerns and accepted wisdeom (which is produced by mass media in our day) and taking a long view of social hierarchy and specialization as forms of survival-threatening poison.

[img]http://gooddog.co.za/wp-content/uploads/2015/10/Frisbee-01.jpg
[/img]
Specialization

[jakell]

The "ghost in the machine" is social hierarchy. It is maintained by disciplinary institutions (Michel Foucault) that work as forms of torture and dog-training, such as the church, schools, mental illness accusations, and the police/military. And the violence that is involved in keeping certain people submissive.... enslaves everyone in the system through fear and resentment and the disciplinary institutions that are created to maintain the inequality.

You seem to be shifting away from the idea of 'Elites' completely now and are just talking of people on slightly different levels of the hierarchy interacting as would be expected.

'The Ghost in the Machine' would not be the hierarchy, that would be a tool of it. But it now appears there is no ghost, there are no Elites and there is no 'Them', you've put these aside in favour of a grumble about how humans interact and your theory has become a bit dull.

[QatzelOk]

'The Ghost in the Machine' would not be the hierarchy, that would be a tool of it.

No. It's the "ghost." The use of the word "ghost" indicates the perception that some kind of entity is "acting" on an imposed social system. But that magical force is just power relations. Social hierarchy always imposes a kind of violence that strips away any kind of meaningful human agency. And as we "belong to them" more and more, our ability to act in ways that create survial conditions... diminishes to... nothing. Before collapse, we are reduced to dogs catching frisbees as they starve to death.


Specialization

...and your theory has become a bit dull.

It was exciting up to this point? Thank you.

[jakell]

Coming back to this:

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.

You are making a common mistake associated with Occam's and that is that if something is easy to phrase then that means it is simple, as in your four-worder above. We see the same thing happen with mythological and intuitive explanations.. they sit well with us but that doesn't make them simple.
The reason that they look simple is because they are packed with abbreviated meaning that is part of our cultural understanding and we (unconsciously?) translate this as we consider it. Unpacked they are not at all simple.

Using the above example we have two alternatives (I'm sure more could be imagined though):

1) Humans and their societies have developed organically using already outlined and commonplace mechanisms of physical and psychological evolution.

2) We have been engineered by outside sources. (Elites being considered to be 'outside' here)

The second one looks simpler, but needs to evoke a ghost in the machine, so it actually raises more questions than it answers and needs further unpacking. Out of the two here, the first satisfies Occam's.

I suppose I am using a biased version of Occam's here, but it is one that appears to be the favoured usage of it nowadays ie one applicable to analysis and hypotheses.

If we consider the source of the phrase though - a 13th century theologian - then we could possibly allow for different perspectives, my above response is using the belief system of scientific materialism as if that represents the simplest possible analysis. A mythological viewpoint might use different principles as a foundation though, for instance Creation instead of Evolution.

I do massively favour the 'scientific' usage, I find that more useful. My musings here are a nod to the source of the phrase

[QatzelOk]

I suppose I am using a biased version of Occam's here, but it is one that appears to be the favoured usage of it nowadays ie one applicable to analysis and hypotheses.

You're just quoting "Occam's Razer" to pretend to make a point. Your argument has been basically muddled rants punctuated by the misuse of a well-known author or contemporary media thinker.

But the muddled thinking that has been provided by you has been a dead weight on the thread's very simple argument: that most humans have been domesticated like dogs, and this has made it virtually impossible for our species to continue to survive because of our mass stupidity which affects both the beaten-down dogs and their paranoid, violent and equally survival-stupid pet-owners.

[jakell]

You're just quoting "Occam's Razer" to pretend to make a point. Your argument has been basically muddled rants punctuated by the misuse of a well-known author or contemporary media thinker.

But the muddled thinking that has been provided by you has been a dead weight on the thread's very simple argument: that most humans have been domesticated like dogs, and this has made it virtually impossible for our species to continue to survive because of our mass stupidity which affects both the beaten-down dogs and their paranoid, violent and equally survival-stupid pet-owners.

Well, if only you would address that point.

You started off by saying that we had been subject to artificial (genetic) selection by Elites.
Then you switched to saying that this was actually more like psychological manipulation (eg by customs such as marriage), but still by Elites
Then you switched to putting Elites out of the picture by pointing to mechanisms of co-manipulation. (which IMO is nearer to the truth)

Each of these manoeuvres seemed a result of me trying to get you to simply flesh out your claims, and Occam's is one tool that can be used to sort between hypotheses. At present, I don't know which of the above you currently favour (hint.. Occam's may help you decide) or if you have maybe come up with a new one.

[QatzelOk]

You started off by saying that we had been subject to artificial (genetic) selection by Elites.
Then you switched to saying that this was actually more like psychological manipulation (eg by customs such as marriage), but still by Elites
Then you switched to putting Elites out of the picture by pointing to mechanisms of co-manipulation. (which IMO is nearer to the truth)

Thanks for the synopsis - "The thread so far...."

Each of these manoeuvres seemed a result of me trying to get you to simply flesh out your claims

I agree that dialogue is the best way to get an idea across. Far stronger than a monologue or rant.
...

Here's a rant from Counterpunch that, nonetheless, describes some of the dog-training practiced by mass media:

... the public sphere has ceased operating according to the designs of representative democracy. Instead – and this is no accident – it runs on powerful mechanisms of identification borrowed directly from commercial culture (lifestyle advertising, mainstream cinema and television, etc.) that respond to our search for a more complete life by drawing us into more and more complete (because more imaginary) structures of self-and-world.

I would argue that "our search for a more complete lifestyle" is a result of other controling technologies that have made us feel less-than-human.

[jakell]

'Controlling technologies' sounds fascinating, if a little vague, so I am left to speculate..

You say 'other controlling technologies' here, which leads me to surmise that you mean those other than described in the quote (advertising, cinema, television). Before these we had radio, and before that books and newspapers, before the printing press... well who knows?
Can you describe these 'other controlling technologies'?

[QatzelOk]

Over time, the natural communication between human beings has been replaced by corporate media products.

These corporate media products (radio, TV, film, advertising) have been designed to psychologically manipulate humans into controlled types of behavior. They harnass some instinctive reactions to certain types of stimulae (see Edward Bernays). Mass media is controlled by a handful or very rich people, and the effect it has on us is that it takes away our ability to act naturally.

Likewise, car-dependent suburbs "destroy the street" (also, the community) and remove spontaneous contact between people by locking them into cars, isolating them in ugly houses, and forcing them to work long hours to pay for those huge lawns and SUVs. When you're always in a car, your movements are easily monitored and controlled.

Religion is used as a way to enslave as well, and when all else fails, the rich can give us a war or terrorism, and then explain why we have to have all our rights suspended.

All of these wars, terrorism and media manipulation are tools of control. The earth would be better off if these things were removed from human experience, if humans stopped belonging to pet-owners.

[Potemkin]

All of these wars, terrorism and media manipulation are tools of control. The earth would be better off if these things were removed from human experience, if humans stopped belonging to pet-owners.

It's too late for that, Qatz. The first animal the human race domesticated about ten millennia ago was not the dog or the cow, but ourselves. We've been loyal and obedient lapdogs of our masters ever since.

[QatzelOk]

It's too late for that, Qatz. The first animal the human race domesticated about ten millennia ago was not the dog or the cow, but ourselves

10,000 years is a very short time in geological time. All it will take is one global catastrophe and mankind will be on its way to undoing a lot of its socially-constructed control mechanisms.

Some of them - like religion, mass media, respect for kings and the nuclear family - are already sputtering.

2) We have been engineered by outside sources. (Elites being considered to be 'outside' here)

I don't think Elites can be considered "an outside force." They are just other dogs who have, through the use of targeted violence, become the controlling dogs. Dogs having other dogs as pets, who then have other dogs as pets... is a more accurate portrait of human societies built on social hierarchy.

Dogs aren't smart enough to control other dogs, so we get tyranny and incompetence instead, and lots of fear-inducing terrorism (advertising, wars, terror, propaganda, burn-in-hell, horror movies, asylums, prisons, etc.). But the number one way in which a handful of human dogs controls a huge number of human dogs is by ganging up. A gang of controlling dogs can easily control an isolated suburban dog with no social skills - so that is what these controlling dogs try to create with their disciplinary institutions.

[jakell]

....I don't think Elites can be considered "an outside force." They are just other dogs who have, through the use of targeted violence, become the controlling dogs. Dogs having other dogs as pets, who then have other dogs as pets... is a more accurate portrait of human societies built on social hierarchy....

So it's not really that accurate to talk about "THEM" then if they are this fluid. What you say sounds like a temporary situation.

If you are speaking of Elites who preserve their bloodlines and therefore remain separate, then these would be 'an outside force'.

[QatzelOk]

So it's not really that accurate to talk about "THEM" then if they are this fluid. What you say sounds like a temporary situation.

I disagree. I think it's very important to notice the huuuge wall between us and them.

While it's true that the members of the elite change every few generations, this only happens when great masses of the poor kill them.

This isn't really fluid. It just demonstrates that "belonging to them" is only tolerable for so long.

[QatzelOk]

One more note on the "fluidity" of the elite:

After the French Revolution, the same bankers were in charge. Only the kings and nobility were altered. And Napoleon sure did help French bankers acquire new markets (new pets).

Likewise, the American revolution didn't really change who was rich and who was poor. It just narrowed down the number of rich "owners", and allowed these "newly exclusive" American elites to cancel all the treaties signed with the (non-pet) natives after the local population (of "American citizens") had grown large enough to eradicate the non-pets of the First Nations.

Far from being fluid, power tends to concentrate and eliminate all freedom from its own "belonging" control.

The only fluidity is for positions in the 10% (or so) vassal class, which is constantly in search of desperately greedy social-climbers from the not-so-bright classes of obedient pets. Sarah Palin seems like a good caricature of this role. And perhaps Bernie Sanders as well.