UnwelcomeGuests - User contributions [en]

Talk:740 - The Words and Deeds of the US Deep State (Fletcher Prouty, JFK, Vietnam, The Secret Team, Snowden Affair, BBG, The Underground Reich)

2017-08-09T00:33:28Z

Criegod:

== Evidence -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] ([[User talk:Criegod|talk]]) 17:05, 8 August 2017 (PDT) ==

I admit that i haven't listened to the full episode with full attention. But i have "listened" to it, then went to Emory's ''For the Record'' program and listened to episode 902 (same "patchy" attention). I hadn't known about Gehlen's connection to Radio Free Europe but... i was looking for something that would tell me something i didn't know about Edward Snowden and "l'Affaire Snowden". Particularly since some very definite statements about this were made as a deep-state operation. However, i didn't hear '''any evidence'''. Snowden has always seemed authentic to me. Considering the whole affair from start to finish, nothing ever particularly struck me as not smelling right. But in line with understanding that the rabbit hole can always go deeper, i approach the subject with an open mind. Only... '''no evidence''' (that i heard).

So, this episode is pretty much a big zip for me. I had already read a fair amount about the Gehlen organization so that wasn't what drew my attention to this episode. Having listened to stuff that i already (mostly) knew (and that, therefore, didn't really work to hold my sustained attention) i profess myself disappointed with this episode. I came for something but got nothing that i came for.

Anyone have a different opinion? Did i miss something?

Addendum: Also... i gather that the subtext of much of the information presented about Gehlen and his organization was its '''infiltration''' of the U.S. government. From [http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-902-the-underground-reich-and-the-deep-politics-of-the-cia-privacy-advocates-update-on-the-adventures-of-eddie-the-friendly-spook/]:

''"...analysis of the Gehlen “Org” and its primary role as a Trojan Horse enabling Underground Reich penetration of the United States."''

This, also, seems dubious to me (assuming that the word "penetration" means something more than just "association" (as in "working '''for'''"). From the same link (above):

''"...A network of former Nazi intelligence agents, the majority of whom were members of the SS, began working out of offices at Camp King side by side with army intelligence officers. ... The Gehlen Organization was a murderous bunch, ‘free-wheeling’ and out of control... The army became fed up with the Gehlen Organization, but there was no way out. Its operatives were professional double-crossers and liars – many were also alleged war criminals – and now they had the army over a barrel..."
''

When i heard this, i longed to know *how* they could (possibly) have had the army "over a barrel"? But no indication is given. Simply because they were "double-crossers and liars" seems rather doubtful to me. Anyway, it seems quite dubious to me that the Gehlen Organization infiltrated any U.S. organization in any meaningful way... meaning that they exerted some *control* or *influence* inside the organization, *steering* the organization in a direction they wouldn't otherwise have gone. Re Dulles and his ilk, i don't see a whole lot of difference between them and the Nazis, so i don't consider, as evidence, simply noting how similarly they thought and behaved. For me, that's not evidence of infiltration, but like-mindedness.

Talk:740 - The Words and Deeds of the US Deep State (Fletcher Prouty, JFK, Vietnam, The Secret Team, Snowden Affair, BBG, The Underground Reich)

2017-08-09T00:30:07Z

Criegod: /* Evidence -- Criegod (talk) 17:05, 8 August 2017 (PDT) */

== Evidence -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] ([[User talk:Criegod|talk]]) 17:05, 8 August 2017 (PDT) ==

I admit that i haven't listened to the full episode with full attention. But i have "listened" to it, then went to Emory's ''For the Record'' program and listened to episode 902 (same "patchy" attention). I hadn't known about Gehlen's connection to Radio Free Europe but... i was looking for something that would tell me something i didn't know about Edward Snowden and "l'Affaire Snowden". Particularly since some very definite statements about this were made as a deep-state operation. However, i didn't hear *any evidence*. Snowden has always seemed authentic to me. Considering the whole affair from start to finish, nothing ever particularly struck me as not smelling right. But in line with understanding that the rabbit hole can always go deeper, i approach the subject with an open mind. Only... *no evidence* (that i heard).

So, this episode is pretty much a big zip for me. I had already read a fair amount about the Gehlen organization so that wasn't what drew my attention to this episode. Having listened to stuff that i already (mostly) knew (and that, therefore, didn't really work to hold my sustained attention) i profess myself disappointed with this episode. I came for something but got nothing that i came for.

Anyone have a different opinion? Did i miss something?

Addendum: Also... i gather that the subtext of much of the information presented about Gehlen and his organization was its *infiltration* of the U.S. government. From [http://spitfirelist.com/for-the-record/ftr-902-the-underground-reich-and-the-deep-politics-of-the-cia-privacy-advocates-update-on-the-adventures-of-eddie-the-friendly-spook/]:

''"...analysis of the Gehlen “Org” and its primary role as a Trojan Horse enabling Underground Reich penetration of the United States."''

This, also, seems dubious to me (assuming that the word "penetration" means something more than just "association" (as in "working *for*"). From the same link (above):

''"...A network of former Nazi intelligence agents, the majority of whom were members of the SS, began working out of offices at Camp King side by side with army intelligence officers. ... The Gehlen Organization was a murderous bunch, ‘free-wheeling’ and out of control... The army became fed up with the Gehlen Organization, but there was no way out. Its operatives were professional double-crossers and liars – many were also alleged war criminals – and now they had the army over a barrel..."
''

When i heard this, i longed to know *how* they could (possibly) have had the army "over a barrel"? But no indication is given. Simply because they were "double-crossers and liars" seems rather doubtful to me. Anyway, it seems quite dubious to me that the Gehlen Organization infiltrated any U.S. organization in any meaningful way... meaning that they exerted some *control* or *influence* inside the organization, *steering* the organization in a direction they wouldn't otherwise have gone. Re Dulles and his ilk, i don't see a whole lot of difference between them and the Nazis, so i don't consider, as evidence, simply noting how similarly they thought and behaved. For me, that's not evidence of infiltration, but like-mindedness.

Talk:740 - The Words and Deeds of the US Deep State (Fletcher Prouty, JFK, Vietnam, The Secret Team, Snowden Affair, BBG, The Underground Reich)

2017-08-09T00:05:40Z

Criegod: /* Evidence -- ~~~~ */ new section

Talk:621 - US Capitalism From Start To Finish (911 As Endgame Of The Capitalist Fundamentalists)

2012-10-27T13:04:13Z

Criegod: /* -- Criegod 09:38, 26 October 2012 (PDT) */

== WTC6 = WTF? -- [[User:Putul|Putul]] 23:45, 15 September 2012 (PDT) ==
[[image:wtc6-aerial-hole-hr.jpg|310px|right]]
I considered myself pretty well informed on 9/11, but had completely failed to notice the gaping hole in the middle of WTC6. Could this possibly have been created by falling debris? When did this happen? Before, during or after the collapse of WTC 1/2/7? Are there good images of WTC6 online? Or testimony of bombs going off?

===Re: WTC6 = WTF? -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 20:06, 26 October 2012 (PDT)===
: See right for an image. I have seen one transcribed testimony claiming bombs. Superficial investigation suggests that WTC5/WTC6 seems to be a fairly popular topic with people proposing energy weapons/mini-nukes/other explanations. Hard to say why without a detailed study.
:* http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/wtc6_5.html - summary suggesting that debris could have caused the holes
:* http://thewebfairy.com/killtown/wtc6.html - a lot of photos and some links

== Just one piece of the puzzle -- [[User:Musik|Musik]] 02:49, 18 September 2012 (PDT) ==

To get closer to {{Sep11}}, I looked at history; the long history of [[:category:False Flags|false flag operations]] and then tried to find common patterns. To my surprise, most suspicious events have not left a trail that enables one to get the root of events. Life is easier if we accept that we will never know for sure.

'''Plausible Deniability''' is therefore a key concept and very successful. The book of history professor [[Daniele Ganser]]: "Gladio - Nato's secret armies" shows in detail how false flags were planned and carried out in Europe in the 1980ies to prevent Italy from "falling" to a "third option" (not Capitalism nor Communism but Syndicalism) leaving a bloody trail of hundreds if not thousands murdered, supported by the secret services of both east and west.

Following [[Smithy]] events like 9/11 or such alike can safely be provoked, observed, supported and taken advantage of using a statistical (game like) model of probability. This means that the one who seeks to win in this game cannot be 100% sure what and when things happen - but can profit from Plausible Deniability, even if he financed the terrorists, seems to have known things in advance, or put explosives near a place where maybe some time an attack might happen or not.

Regarding the motives and the monstrosity of 9/11, first, because of the game like nature of consenting, power elite's money starts flowing in certain directions to protect their interests very early. This means, years later, no one feels responsible for any specific action, decision or outcome. It's more like a neural network, I guess, some nodes better connected than others. Second, what is at stake for all of these rich kids is the "biggest achievement of modern times", their Anglo-Saxon banking system. The Dollar was questioned as world reserve currency by more than just a few intellectuals. The prosperity and all "achievements" of the past could slip away in the blink of an eye, if no "catalytic event" (PNAC) would help getting things right quickly. The so called "stability" of the banking system must have priority for those who need to pay their bodyguards and private armies in cash (otherwise they won't protect their feudal lords no more).

Analyzing all the other candidates for false flag events helps seeing how coldblooded things are carried out if people who give the money cannot be held responsible. Nobody cares about the lives of the suckers who die no matter whether it is a single person, hundreds, thousands or more. The cruelty lies in the description of the relationship between people as defined by monetary terms - which is a zero sum game.

That's all my simple mind needs for an explanation. It seems to be a good working hypothesis. What is $240,000,000,000 in securities? Not much compared to the above scenario. So, I think its a good article but does not get the big picture.

== -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 09:38, 26 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Again, i am left underwhelmed by a presentation regarding a motive for 9/11 being destruction of financial records. Given the number of people who died in a couple of specific organizations, you could also make the argument that the elimination of those people was also part of the motive. There's some logic to this idea, since written records are not the only motive force behind an investigation. People who feel they have a cause in doing what they're doing are often rather difficult to buy off or neutralize (if you can't kill them or threaten their family with impunity). Having said that, the argument (as Robin noted) was almost entirely speculative. Furthermore, i find it extremely implausible that this motivation to abort ongoing financial investigations could have been primary. I find it very difficult to believe that ONI contained elements within it that would have been capable of conducting any sort of independent investigation. The ONI, in many ways, is worse than the CIA. Similarly, federal or state organizations "empowered" (ha ha) to investigate financial crimes, i believe, do not really pose any kind of serious threat that they might get "out of control" and really investigate things (in a way that might conceivably lead to prosecution of those at the very top... from which all things flow). And also, as i said before, to go to such extraordinary, unique lengths (taking this as a causal motivating factor) to deal with ongoing, systemic corruption, of which this is only one of many, many instances, also seems rather implausible.

I'll give Robin that the show did include all the necessary qualifications in putting the issue presented in an appropriate, realistic context. My biggest problem is the relative insignificance of the issue. Something that, in my view, was at most (and probably) a contributing factor, but not a primary causal one, being discussed, at length, almost wholly in speculative terms is, in my opinion, of fairly low priority and importance. To me the most crucial fact that must be known about 9/11 is that it was, beyond doubt, an "inside job". Arguments which ''prove'' this case (beyond doubt) are (at this late date) still, perhaps, worth some time (to those too "stupid" to have yet seen and comprehended the blindingly obvious).

During this part of the show i was actually led to think of the show possibly getting into Illuminati type conspiracies at some point in the future. I agree with the above comment about a certain degree of "unknowability" being part of operations that are designed to include elements of misdirection. If, for an overall gestalt of reasons 9/11 was conceived and executed... when considering specific details of the operation, if someone decided to hit certain specific floors that related to large financial conspiracies (real, not theoretical), this could be seen as actually adding a ''confounding'' element to the overall story. In fact, the overall story does seem to be "designed" in this way... with so many disparate elements thrown in that anyone stupid enough to pursue ''a'' (single) "reason" can be easily dismissed as a nutjob.

I heartily and completely concur with Robin's wrapup of the show, though, which he led into by saying:

{{quote|Every time we use money we are supporting the system. We can't, on the one hand, continue to use money and, on the other hand, be surprised that the system has control over us and the environment around us.|[[Robin Upton]], UG#[[621]]}}

Amen to that. That is the very heart of the matter. We delude ourselves in denying our connections to and support of the system that we, supposedly, oppose. In this delusion, we are forced to compartmentalize (and limit) our understanding of things so that we can participate in one area (in "good conscience") and "fail" to see the intimate connections this area has with the whole... how it is part of the entire fabric, and that without this support, the entire fabric would suffer a significant blow to its integrity (in terms of holding together)... while, at this very moment, the fabric is under stress from all quarters and threatens to be rent asunder. Not to say that the reconstitution of a different framework will necessarily be in our favor. But as long as we are willing to delude ourselves in supporting a system that, in toto, works unceasingly against our best interests, it is unlikely that the new system that emerges ''will'' be much better for us. And, as Robin, to his credit, gets... the heart of this system is ''{{cat|money}}'' (as it is presently constructed).

As far as "we're not all selfish..." goes, though... of ''course'', we're all selfish. It would be to deny the most elemental understanding of human nature not to believe this. The issue isn't whether we're selfish or not but what it ''means'' to be selfish. When one defines selfishness so narrowly that it can be construed as "selfish" to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, one is working with a definition that is not in the least helpful in clarifying the issues involved. We should understand that we're all selfish and that, after our needs for physically surviving are met (food, water, clothing, shelter) a large component of our selfishness relates to having positive communal relationships with others... not to mention that the best way for us to meet our physical survival needs is ''together'', in a harmoniously cooperating group (community). The problem with this simplistic, dichotomistic definition of selfishness is that it reinforces the false notion that selfishness and harmonious, sharing relations with others are somehow contradictory or at odds with each other.

I will also say that the interview with Post about the specific origins and mechanisms of capitalism in the United States was very interesting... and educational.

Regarding Musik's comments, above... you've ''got'' it!

Talk:621 - US Capitalism From Start To Finish (911 As Endgame Of The Capitalist Fundamentalists)

2012-10-26T16:38:10Z

Criegod: /* -- ~~~~ */ new section

== WTC6 = WTF? -- [[User:Putul|Putul]] 23:45, 15 September 2012 (PDT) ==

I considered myself pretty well informed on 9/11, but had completely failed to notice the gaping hole in the middle of WTC6. Could this possibly have been created by falling debris? When did this happen? Before, during or after the collapse of WTC 1/2/7? Are there good images of WTC6 online? Or testimony of bombs going off?

== Just one piece of the puzzle -- [[User:Musik|Musik]] 02:49, 18 September 2012 (PDT) ==

To get closer to {{Sep11}}, I looked at history; the long history of false flag operations and then tried to find common patterns. To my surprise, most suspicious events have not left a trail that enables one to get the root of events. Life is easier if we accept that we will never know for sure.

'''Plausible Deniability''' is therefore a key concept and very successful. The book of history professor [[Daniele Ganser]]: "Gladio - Nato's secret armies" shows in detail how false flags were planned and carried out in Europe in the 1980ies to prevent Italy from "falling" to a "third option" (not Capitalism nor Communism but Syndicalism) leaving a bloody trail of hundreds if not thousands murdered, supported by the secret services of both east and west.

Following [[Smithy]] events like 9/11 or such alike can safely be provoked, observed, supported and taken advantage of using a statistical (game like) model of probability. This means that the one who seeks to win in this game cannot be 100% sure what and when things happen - but can profit from Plausible Deniability, even if he financed the terrorists, seems to have known things in advance, or put explosives near a place where maybe some time an attack might happen or not.

Regarding the motives and the monstrosity of 9/11, first, because of the game like nature of consenting, power elite's money starts flowing in certain directions to protect their interests very early. This means, years later, no one feels responsible for any specific action, decision or outcome. It's more like a neural network, I guess, some nodes better connected than others. Second, what is at stake for all of these rich kids is the "biggest achievement of modern times", their Anglo-Saxon banking system. The Dollar was questioned as world reserve currency by more than just a few intellectuals. The prosperity and all "achievements" of the past could slip away in the blink of an eye, if no "catalytic event" (PNAC) would help getting things right quickly. The so called "stability" of the banking system must have priority for those who need to pay their bodyguards and private armies in cash (otherwise they won't protect their feudal lords no more).

Analyzing all the other candidates for false flag events helps seeing how coldblooded things are carried out if people who give the money cannot be held responsible. Nobody cares about the lives of the suckers who die no matter whether it is a single person, hundreds, thousands or more. The cruelty lies in the description of the relationship between people as defined by monetary terms - which is a zero sum game.

That's all my simple mind needs for an explanation. It seems to be a good working hypothesis. What is $240,000,000,000 in securities? Not much compared to the above scenario. So, I think its a good article but does not get the big picture.

== -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 09:38, 26 October 2012 (PDT) ==

Again, i am left underwhelmed by a presentation regarding a motive for 9/11 being destruction of financial records. Given the number of people who died in a couple of specific organizations, you could also make the argument that the elimination of those people was also part of the motive. There's some logic to this idea, since written records are not the only motive force behind an investigation. People who feel they have a cause in doing what they're doing are often rather difficult to buy off or neutralize (if you can't kill them or threaten their family with impunity). Having said that, the argument (as you noted) was almost entirely speculative. Furthermore, i find it extremely implausible that this motivation to abort ongoing financial investigations could have been primary. I find it very difficult to believe that ONI contained elements within it that would have been capable of conducting any sort of independent investigation. The ONI, in many ways, is worse than the CIA. Similarly, federal or state organizations "empowered" (ha ha) to investigate financial crimes, i believe, do not really pose any kind of serious threat that they might get "out of control" and really investigate things (in a way that might conceivably lead to prosecution of those at the very top... from which all things flow). And also, as i said before, to go to such extraordinary, unique lengths (taking this as a causal motivitating factor) to deal with ongoing, systemic corruption, of which this is only one of many, many instances, also seems rather implausible.

I'll give Robin that the show did include all the necessary qualifications in putting the issue presented in an appropriate, realistic context. My biggest problem is the relative insignificance of the issue. Something that, in my view, was at most (and probably) a contributing factor, but not a primary causal one, being discussed, at length, almost wholly in speculative terms is, in my opinion, of fairly low priority and importance. To me the most crucial fact that must be known about 9/11 is that it was, beyond doubt, an "inside job". Arguments which _prove_ this case (beyond doubt) are (at this late date) still, perhaps, worth some time (to those too "stupid" to have yet seen and comprehended the blindingly obvious).

During this part of the show i was actually led to think of the show possibly getting into Illuminati type conspiracies at some point in the future. I agree with the above comment about a certain degree of "unknowability" being part of operations that are designed to include elements of misdirection. If, for an overall gestalt of reasons 9/11 was perpetrated, when considering specific details of the operation, if someone decided to hit certain specific floors that related to large financial conspiracies (real, not theoretical), this could be seen as actually adding a _confounding_ element to the overall story. In fact, the overall story does seem to be "designed" in this way... with so many disparate elements thrown in that anyone stupid enough to pursue _a_ "reason" can be easily dismissed as a nutjob.

I heartily and completely concur with Robin's wrapup of the show, though, which he led into by saying:

Every time we use money we are supporting the system. We can't, on the one hand, continue to use money and, on the other hand, be surprised that the system has control over us and the environment around us.

Amen to that. That is the very heart of the matter. We delude ourselves in denying our connections to and support of the system that we, supposedly, oppose. In this delusion, we are forced to compartmentalize (and limit) our understanding of things so that we can participate in one area (in "good conscience") and "fail" to see the intimate connections this area has with the whole... how it is part of the entire fabric, and that without this support, the entire fabric would suffer a significant blow to its integrity (in terms of holding together)... while, at this very moment, the fabric is under stress from all quarters and threatens to be rent asunder. Not to say that the reconstitution of a different framework will necessarily be in our favor. But as long as we are willing to delude ourselves in supporting a system that, in toto, works unceasingly against our best interests, it is unlikely that the new system that emerges _will_ be much better for us. And, as Robin, to his credit, gets... the heart of this system is _money_ (as it is presently constructed).

As far as "we're not all selfish..." goes, though... of _course_, we're all selfish. It would be to deny the most elemental understanding of human nature to believe this. The issue isn't whether we're selfish or not but what it _means_ to be selfish. When one defines selfishness so narrowly that it can be construed as "selfish" to cut off one's nose to spite one's face, one is working with a definiton that is not in the least helpful in clarifying the issues involved. We should understand that we're all selfish and that, after our needs for physically surviving are met (food, water, clothing, shelter) a large component of our selfishness relates to having positive communal relationships with others. Not to mention that the best way for us to meet our physical survival needs is _together_, in a harmoniously cooperating group (community). The problem with this simplistic, dichotomistic definition of selfishness is that it reinforces the false notion that selfishness and harmonious, sharing relations with others are somehow contradictory or at odds with each other.

I will also say that the interview with Post about the specific origins and mechanisms of capitalism in the United States was very interesting... and educational.

Regarding Musik's comments, above... you've _got_ it!

Talk:614 - Granting Autonomy to The Logic of Money 1 (Capitalism, Debt and Banking)

2012-08-24T14:46:35Z

Criegod: Myths & errors -- ~~~~ -- ~~~~

== Myths & errors -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 07:46, 24 August 2012 (PDT) -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 07:46, 24 August 2012 (PDT) ==

I just listened to most of the first half of this episode last night (before falling asleep) and i have a couple of points i want to make that are, perhaps, somewhat tangential to the main "thesis" of the show (which i haven't even finished listening to yet).

First, the idea that Lincoln issued greenbacks in lieu of borrowing from bankers is, in many ways, apparently a myth. Some people even speculate that this is a factor in why he was assassinated. Not that the issuing of fiat money didn't happen, but that Lincoln was a proponent of this (is the myth). For instance, see http://www.garynorth.com/public/6875.cfm and many other, related links, of Gary's.

What's the first rule of U.S. history? Everything you've been taught is a lie. So it is with Lincoln. I've long felt that Lincoln deserved no praise for being almost singularly responsible for the Civil War being as bloody and decisive (until the end of Reconstruction threw all the "gains" away) as it was. Did any of the states enter the Union understanding that this was irreversible? On what moral basis did Lincoln stubbornly insist that his job as president was to keep the Union together? Buchanan was a hell of a lot better, in my opinion. He just wanted to get out of the job and leave all the troubles behind him. Brazil didn't need a civil war to free the slaves (circa 1885, i believe). The U.S. didn't need one other, but Lincoln insisted on it. He was really a bit unbalanced, mentally, i believe, to put his "idea" ahead of so many lives. A psychopath, perhaps?

My second point has to do with Robin going on about psychopathy (again). I have communicated with him privately my disagreement with him on this issue. My kind of person takes disagreement as an opportunity to learn. As far as i can tell, Robin simply ignored what i had to say. I've gone into my objections with him in greater length than i will here. But suffice it to say that if you will grant that those members of native american tribes (and examples are legion) who were willing to attack, steal from and kill members of other tribes (on a regular basis, yet) were psychopathic, then i will grant his point.

The fact is that human social factors play a role within a social milieu. In modern society the "1%" (or 1% of 1%) largely exist within an entirely distinct and non-overlapping social milieu which most ordinary people are completely unfamiliar with. Call them psychopaths (or sociopaths) if you don't wish to understand the real issues involved.

I will grant that there is something nasty going on when, for instance, Jack Welch lays off tens of thousands of GE workers (which he did when i was living in Albany, NY). But, from a social-humanistic point of view, he avoided all personal contact that would convey any of the personal ramifications of what he did to him in a direct, concrete, "feelable" manner. Being paid to be a slasher, his social milieu was, i believe, a bit unhealthy, a bit distorted, from a socio-humanistic perspective (although within the milieu they all try to make it as "normal" and "healthy" as possible). But if you want to know whether he was really a psycopath or not, you have to look at his personal relationships with other people (i contend). From this point of view, you will find that this whole idea of psychopathy/sociopathy and the idea that it, genetically, constitutes some 1-4 percent of the population extremely dubious. The problem is systemic. Within the range of normal human variability an overwhelming majority of the human population, when put into the right (capitalist) context, will behave "psychopathically". I don't claim that Jack Welch was representative of your "average" human being. I think he resided towards one end of the range of normal human variability. But the great majority of people are not substantially different at all. This is normal human variability playing out within an environment extremely hostile to what we think of as the social good.

Talk:613 - The Economic Disposal of The Worthless (The Hidden History of Eugenics in USA)

2012-08-08T04:31:18Z

Criegod: Schizophrenic study -- ~~~~

== Schizophrenic study -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 21:31, 7 August 2012 (PDT) ==

Just listening to this episode and at 13 minutes into the 2nd hour the speaker tells of this study of schizophrenics which... is APPALLING!

The implications and conclusions that the speaker is suggesting and drawing are completely, totally unwarranted. The classic failure to differentiate between correlation and causation. Nothing whatsoever along the lines that are being suggested can be inferred from this study. Who is this guy? He cannot (i hope) be a scientist.

Talk:608 - Flight From Meaning 3 (Science, Chimpanzees and The Monongahela)

2012-07-29T00:16:11Z

Criegod: /* Meaning & purpose -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Talbott's Essay? -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 20:35, 16 June 2012 (PDT) ==

I find Talbott's ideas fascinating - but also quite challenging.
I'd love to hear what you made of them.

[[User:Robin|Robin]] 20:35, 16 June 2012 (PDT)

== Meaning & purpose -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 17:16, 28 July 2012 (PDT) ==

I wrote the following notes on July 13th, after listening to the show. I felt my statements evidenced some sort of underlying bias and so i thought i'd sit on them for a while. Looking at them now, i'm inclined to just post it as i wrote it... bias or no. Note that the time indicators may not be accurate (at one point i think i was listening to the show after i'd chopped a segment from the beginning).

Overall, i felt that the majority of Steve Talbott's talk was relatively unobjectionable. However, i still had a fairly big problem with it, overall, finding it tedious, boring, and fundamentally misguided/fuzzy-headed.

I have little problem with the basic philosophy expressed (i think). But i feel he went badly wrong when talking about "meaning". My advice to him would be to go back, substitute the word "purpose" for "meaning" everywhere, then rethink everything.

46:00

"Meaning is never a fixed quantity, but always opens out onto the entire universe of meaning. Text and context are inseparable. And if you know enough to ask a half-way coherent question then, in the very framing of the question, we have already found our way towards some of the understanding we seek."

It bothered me that he made certain general observations like this regarding "meaning", while neglecting to state what, i feel, should almost _necessarily_ have been observed in the same breath, in order to preserve any intellectual coherency: that meaning, _fundamentally_, exists with respect to purpose. Meaning cannot exist in (complete) abstraction, i.e. where there is either a pretense that no purpose is present or the purposes are totally implicit and unexamined. That's what bothered me most... so much talking about "meaning" in abstraction, which (in my view) is pretty meaningless. Without reference to a purpose, there is no "meaning". The natural world, all by itself, with no humans observing it, has no "meaning" because it has no "purpose". (At least that is my "theological" view on the matter.) When we talk about the meaning of the natural world (he often spoke, citing specific details, about the "meaning" of the biological world). But the only meaning present there is that which relates to the purposes of the human beings doing the observing. One has gone badly wrong when, talking about meaning in abstraction, it becomes necessary (for decoding a coherent "meaning" in what is being said) to look at the human purposes, as embedded in systems, cultures and institutions, that have channeled/ influenced the person's thinking towards the meaning that they perceive.

54:40

"The aim of the whole endeavour is forgotten... an aim we might express with T.S. Eliot's familiar lines from Four Quartets: we shall not cease from exploration and the end of all our exploring will be to arrive at where we started and know the place for the first time."

This illustrates how one goes wrong when makes the fundamental mistake i am referring to:

"The aim of the whole endeavour..." ... is what? _Forgotten_? Truly? What sort of analysis is this? This demonstrates a kind of naivete, if you will. The unstated presumption in all of this is that it just somehow happened... and then we just somehow "forgot". We lost track of meaning; we forgot our aim. This may seem like a nit, but the whole analysis is sterile and lacking when the most important and salient factors regarding the phenomenon that he talks about at such great length are never brought into the open. We didn't _forget_ our aim. The model underlying this way of thinking is just flat out ridiculous, immature, babyish, naive. There is and has been throughout human history a mechanism at work which is responsible for the lamentable state of affairs that is the constant background/context within which he is talking... and yet he never refers to it... it's existence may be -- but certainly may as well be -- invisible to him.

Wouldn't it be relevant, when talking about "meaning", to ask whether there are any systematic factors, present throughout all human history and civilazation that work to undermine the integrity of everything we do as human beings? Wouldn't this have an affect on _all_ our "meanings"? Because such is certainly the case. Absent these factors the phenomenon he is discussing wouldn't exist (not in anything remotely like the way he is viewing it). And yet he talks about the phenomenon without ever making any attempt whatsoever to inquire into these factors. There is an underlying abstraction to what he's saying, and what this abstraction fails to represent is _vital_ to producing any coherent meaning in what he is saying (in my view). Worse, the implicit assumption he makes is that no such factors relevant to the topic he is discussing are worth mentioning (or even exist).

I really don't see how you can talk about a complex and subtle phenomenon in any meaningful way when you allow this background to go completely unquestioned. The view of the person doing such an analysis seems to be constrained, such that these questions _cannot_ be asked, as a matter of attitude. I believe his whole thesis would be derailed if he delved into what lies in the background. So, almost willfully, he never looks and never asks.

And by not delving into the background of what he's discussing, he reinforces his comfortable place within the prevailing order of things, which might be disturbed by closer questioning.

Meaning always exists with respect to some purpose. Human beings, in general, have purpose and purposes. Foremostly, as individuals, to stay alive. But the culture and the institutions themselves have purposes, and these purposes play a fairly (at the least) dominant role in the order of things. To talk about meaning in abstraction is an exercise in meaninglessness. To think that one can meaningfully talk about meaning in complete abstraction is to implicitly (and unknowingly) ground what one is talking about in an unexamined context. Therefore, everything that one says when doing this is either meaningless, or _worse_ ... an analysis implicitly based upon purposes which are never examined (and hence never understood, or even known to exist)... purposes that are hidden because structures of power wish them to be hidden. Not only hidden, but wish the populous to believe that the context of _their_ meaning is different than it really is. No intelligent analysis can look at any of this in such a situation (where such dominant institutions and cultural patterns exist) without taking into account the _supposed_ state of affairs (and the supposed meanings that derive from this) and the _actual_ state of affairs.

So, i have to say, i found the essay rather sterile and meaningless. The good observations were so abstract, so far away from any real context (being closer to contexts that, in fact, are not "real" but rather constructions of power and propaganda) that they, in fact, held very little meaning, for me at least. But, this is what intellectuals and academics do. They intellectualize within a vacuum, because the context and purpose manifest in the real world is not "safe" for them to look at openly and honestly.

What i've vaguely referred to is his analysis of scientific thought, cultural trends of thought... that sort of thing. In other words an analysis which seeks to generalize about what it is finding. I have no problem with that, in general. But to generalize without taking into account (at all) the most highly relevant factors... that is a problem.

And it seems like there's a major error being made via the mechanism of looking at the natural world, making some observations (here there are no hidden purposes insofar as the phenomenon being looked at) and then, by analogy, carrying this thinking over into the human world (where it becomes "philosophy") without ever noting that the process of analogizing fails terribly due to the fact that the natural world holds no systematically surpressed "meanings"... a notable aspect of the human world.

================================================================

2:30

"Meaning never arises from the non-meaningful. The question we should ask ourselves is not whether meaning can arise from what is not meaningful, but whether "not meaningful" makes any sense at all. Which, of course, is to ask whether meaningless has any meaning. That's the kind of absurd territory we lose ourselves in when we ask for an informative and truthful science without meaning."

AND... even _more_ when we fail to ask about _purpose_. It seems to me that meaning and purpose are related concepts. I could imagine talking about purpose very meaningfully, without ever feeling the need arise to mention meaning, but _not_ vice versa.

You always have to bring abstraction back to the real world, or else you are allowing some unexamined purpose to prevail.

Whenever i hear someone use the word "forget" in relation to some aspect of human cultural or institutional functioning, i immediately look for the unidentitied, unstated purposes that relate to the issue at hand. And there are many other words that function in this same way (to allow one to continue talking without identifying the vital factors that underlie what you're talking about): when "we" "lose" something, or any talk regarding our (unitary) collective purpose or intentions.

================================================================

Around 24+ mins into 2nd part:

This may carry some readers back to the mysterious remark we heard from Owen Barfield "asking about the origin of languages is like asking about the origin of origins". The thought suggests that the meaningful language of things is the foundation of their existence, tangentially speaking.

Thus does abstract thought degenerate when failing to ground it in anything solid (specifically in terms of human purposes).

Talk:607 - Flight From Meaning 2 (Money=Competition=Psychosis)

2012-06-22T05:13:57Z

Criegod: /* Alfie rocks! -- Criegod 22:11, 21 June 2012 (PDT) */

== Alfie rocks! -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 22:11, 21 June 2012 (PDT) ==

[By the way, there's a glitch in the audio at 49:58 in part 1]

Just listened to the Alfie segment again. His views are so right on and, it seems to me, profoundly transformational in scope and implication, that i think very few people have shed their conditioning enough to embrace them fully.

I wanted to comment on the question regarding M. Scott Peck's statement that there's no such thing as altruism.

Alfie responded (in part):

Altruism only means, at least the way i look at it, that I helped you only to help you. That goes on every day.

This seems like a very superficial treatment of the actual motivations involved but the "disagreement" in views (from people who seem, to me, to have the same basic orientation) is something that came to my attention long ago and i believe to be purely... a matter of semantics.

The semantical problems arise for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, but are hinted at by the frequent conflation of the concepts of "altruism" and "self-sacrifice."

I happened to see the following in an online discussion (that turned into a comparison of the views of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand).

The word "altruism" was coined by an atheistic collectivist named
Auguste Comte in the 19th century. He wanted to replace Christianity
and the worship of God with "a religion of humanity", the worship of
man not as an individual but only in the mass. He condemned
Christianity as selfish for exalting the immortality of the
individual soul. He founded a philosophy of "positivism", reducing
everything to "science", and he also founded "sociology".

Thus we can see the murky and possibly somewhat disreputable origins of this word and idea (if you believe the above).

I always thought that the idea of altruism was that i would be doing certain things basically for no reason. If it wasn't because these things benefitted me, then why? I think the answer to this almost necessarily brought in (for reasons involving the "religious" and controlling/dominating nature of the culture) the idea of self-sacrifice and some corresponding religious/ethical directives that we're supposed to adhere to.

Personally, i always look for a real motivation, regardless of how people delude themselves. Mother Teresa, for instance, was motivated not only by the obvious (and accepted) enticements that the afterlife and spiritual/religious merit in reward for services rendered provide (brownie points with God), but by the much realer motivation of being able to think about herself and her relationship with the world in ways which must have provided some tangible payoff.

Really, trying to think rationally about this stuff is like slogging through a bog.

I find that my thinking on this matter was (i admit with some chagrin) influenced by my reading of Ayn Rand as a young person. I'm no fan of hers, but i dug around for this quote that i had (mistakenly) thought was from Robert Heinlein:

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's
someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service,
there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of
sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the
master.
-- Ayn Rand

I believe that the acceptance (to the degree that it is) by the masses of the notion of altruism as a virtue has, in fact, been something that has been exploited and reinforced by a ruling class that hopes to benefit thereby. It certainly doesn't make much rational sense (as -- primitively -- conceived). Since this is something that the privileged class obviously don't practice (systemically), the glaringly obvious and growing disparity between them and us contradicts the idea of altruism and sacrifice as virtues. Thus there are ideological benefits to be had by encouraging us to accept some of their values which they have failed to keep successfully concealed.

It seems obvious to me that it is in our nature as social creatures that we benefit ourselves -- both on a feeling level, and by establishing and strengthening social bonds -- when we help others. And i don't think many people would argue with that. I've even heard people call this pure selfishness on our part. It's all a matter of semantics. I just happen to think that it is foolish not to honestly acknowledge that, of course, everything we do is for our individual benefit -- on some level. Sometimes the level can be pretty deep... and obviously interwoven with the larger benefit to the whole (from which we're not separate). Rather than argue semantics, better to work on understanding the nature of ourselves as social beings and the relationships we have with each other.

The question, to me, is not about selfishness or altruism, but about the depth of our understanding of the nature of both our short-term and longer term interests, individually _and_ collectively (because none of us is wholly separate and apart from the whole).

Anyway, something to think about. In searching for that Heinlein (sic) quote, i ran across some other quotations that i think have some bearing on the issue of the conflation of altruism and self-sacrifice. Skip or enjoy as you are so inclined.

_______________________

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.

I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.

If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance.

Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative.

[all of above from Heinlein]

I slept and I dreamed that life is all joy. I woke and I saw that life is all service. I served and I saw that service is joy. -- Khalil Gibran

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. -- Adam Smith

It is pleasure that lurks in the practice of every one of your virtues. Man performs actions because they are good for him, and when they are good for other people as well they are thought virtuous: if he finds pleasure in helping others he is benevolent; if he finds pleasure in working for society he is public-spirited; but it is for your private pleasure that you give twopence to a beggar as much as it is for my private pleasure that I drink another whiskey and soda. I, less of a humbug than you, neither applaud myself for my pleasure nor demand your admiration. -- W. Somerset Maugham [from "Of Human Bondage"]

Just practice good, do good for others, without thinking or making yourself known so that you may gain reward. Really bring benefit to others, gaining nothing for yourself. This is the primary requisite for breaking free of attachments to the Self. -- Dogen

[and why would one want to do that? To end one's own suffering?]

In protecting oneself, others are protected; In protecting others, oneself is protected. -- the Buddha

The stem of greatness sprouts from the seed of sacrifice. -- Kedar Joshi

Spiritual destiny is manifested in the lives of those who stand out from the masses and actually do something, who live a creative life for the benefit of others. -- Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

True love grows by sacrifice and the more thoroughly the soul rejects natural satisfaction the stronger and more detached its tenderness becomes. -- St. Theresa of Lisieux

He who gives what he would as readily throw away gives without generosity; for the essence of generosity is in self-sacrifice. -- Henry Taylor

______________________________

In conclusion, irrespective of whether we behave "selfishly" or "altruistically" (a false dichotomy) the nub of the matter is that our highly "individualized" mode of existence, foisted upon us by a system of control and domination, is not good for us.

Talk:607 - Flight From Meaning 2 (Money=Competition=Psychosis)

2012-06-22T05:11:11Z

Criegod: Alfie rocks! -- ~~~~

== Alfie rocks! -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 22:11, 21 June 2012 (PDT) ==

[By the way, there's a glitch in the audio at 49:58 in part 1]

Just listened to the Alfie segment again. His views are so right on and, it seems to me, profoundly transformational in scope and implication, that i think very few people have shed their conditioning enough to embrace them fully.

I wanted to comment on the question regarding M. Scott Peck's statement that there's no such thing as altruism.

Alfie responded (in part):

Altruism only means, at least the way i look at it, that I helped you only to help you. That goes on every day.

This seems like a very superficial treatment of the actual motivations involved but the "disagreement" in views (from people who seem, to me, to have the same basic orientation) is something that came to my attention long ago and i believe to be purely... a matter of semantics.

The semantical problems arise for reasons that aren't entirely clear to me, but are hinted at by the frequent conflation of the concepts of "altruism" and "self-sacrifice."

I happened to see the following in an online discussion (that turned into a comparison of the views of Robert Heinlein and Ayn Rand).

The word "altruism" was coined by an atheistic collectivist named Auguste Comte in the 19th century. He wanted to replace Christianity and the worship of God with "a religion of humanity", the worship of man not as an individual but only in the mass. He condemned Christianity as selfish for exalting the immortality of the individual soul. He founded a philosophy of "positivism", reducing everything to "science", and he also founded "sociology".

Thus we can see the murky and possibly somewhat disreputable origins of this word and idea (if you believe the above).

I always thought that the idea of altruism was that i would be doing certain things basically for no reason. If it wasn't because these things benefitted me, then why? I think the answer to this almost necessarily brought in (for reasons involving the "religious" and controlling/dominating nature of the culture) the idea of self-sacrifice and some corresponding religious/ethical directives that we're supposed to adhere to.

Personally, i always look for a real motivation, regardless of how people delude themselves. Mother Teresa, for instance, was motivated not only by the obvious (and accepted) enticements that the afterlife and spiritual/religious merit in reward for services rendered provide (brownie points with God), but by the much realer motivation of being able to think about herself and her relationship with the world in ways which must have provided some tangible payoff.

Really, trying to think rationally about this stuff is like slogging through a bog.

I find that my thinking on this matter was (i admit with some chagrin) influenced by my reading of Ayn Rand as a young person. I'm no fan of hers, but i dug around for this quote that i had (mistakenly) thought was from Robert Heinlein:

It only stands to reason that where there's sacrifice, there's someone collecting the sacrificial offerings. Where there's service, there is someone being served. The man who speaks to you of sacrifice is speaking of slaves and masters, and intends to be the master. -- Ayn Rand

I believe that the acceptance (to the degree that it is) by the masses of the notion of altruism as a virtue has, in fact, been something that has been exploited and reinforced by a ruling class that hopes to benefit thereby. It certainly doesn't make much rational sense (as -- primitively -- conceived). Since this is something that the privileged class obviously don't practice (systemically), the glaringly obvious and growing disparity between them and us contradicts the idea of altruism and sacrifice as virtues. Thus there are ideological benefits to be had by encouraging us to accept some of their values which they have failed to keep successfully concealed.

It seems obvious to me that it is in our nature as social creatures that we benefit ourselves -- both on a feeling level, and by establishing and strengthening social bonds -- when we help others. And i don't think many people would argue with that. I've even heard people call this pure selfishness on our part. It's all a matter of semantics. I just happen to think that it is foolish not to honestly acknowledge that, of course, everything we do is for our individual benefit -- on some level. Sometimes the level can be pretty deep... and obviously interwoven with the larger benefit to the whole (from which we're not separate). Rather than argue semantics, better to work on understanding the nature of ourselves as social beings and the relationships we have with each other.

The question, to me, is not about selfishness or altruism, but about the depth of our understanding of the nature of both our short-term and longer term interests, individually _and_ collectively (because none of us is wholly separate and apart from the whole).

Anyway, something to think about. In searching for that Heinlein (sic) quote, i ran across some other quotations that i think have some bearing on the issue of the conflation of altruism and self-sacrifice. Skip or enjoy as you are so inclined.

_______________________

Beware of altruism. It is based on self-deception, the root of all evil.

I don't trust a man who talks about ethics when he is picking my pocket. But if he is acting in his own self-interest and says so, I have usually been able to work out some way to do business with him.

If tempted by something that feels "altruistic," examine your motives and root out that self-deception. Then, if you still want to do it, wallow in it!

Never appeal to a man's "better nature." He may not have one. Invoking his self-interest gives you more leverage.

Being generous is inborn; being altruistic is a learned perversity. No resemblance.

Selfishness is the bedrock on which all moral behavior starts and it can be immoral only when it conflicts with a higher moral imperative.

[all of above from Heinlein]

I slept and I dreamed that life is all joy. I woke and I saw that life is all service. I served and I saw that service is joy. -- Khalil Gibran

How selfish soever man may be supposed, there are evidently some principles in his nature, which interest him in the fortune of others, and render their happiness necessary to him, though he derives nothing from it, except the pleasure of seeing it. -- Adam Smith

It is pleasure that lurks in the practice of every one of your virtues. Man performs actions because they are good for him, and when they are good for other people as well they are thought virtuous: if he finds pleasure in helping others he is benevolent; if he finds pleasure in working for society he is public-spirited; but it is for your private pleasure that you give twopence to a beggar as much as it is for my private pleasure that I drink another whiskey and soda. I, less of a humbug than you, neither applaud myself for my pleasure nor demand your admiration. -- W. Somerset Maugham [from "Of Human Bondage"]

Just practice good, do good for others, without thinking or making yourself known so that you may gain reward. Really bring benefit to others, gaining nothing for yourself. This is the primary requisite for breaking free of attachments to the Self. -- Dogen

[and why would one want to do that? To end one's own suffering?]

In protecting oneself, others are protected; In protecting others, oneself is protected. -- the Buddha

The stem of greatness sprouts from the seed of sacrifice. -- Kedar Joshi

Spiritual destiny is manifested in the lives of those who stand out from the masses and actually do something, who live a creative life for the benefit of others. -- Satguru Sivaya Subramuniyaswami

True love grows by sacrifice and the more thoroughly the soul rejects natural satisfaction the stronger and more detached its tenderness becomes. -- St. Theresa of Lisieux

He who gives what he would as readily throw away gives without generosity; for the essence of generosity is in self-sacrifice. -- Henry Taylor

______________________________

In conclusion, irrespective of whether we behave "selfishly" or "altruistically" (a false dichotomy) the nub of the matter is that our highly "individualized" mode of existence, foisted upon us by a system of control and domination, is not good for us.

Talk:606 - Flight From Meaning 1 (The Superior Human, Debt in The Axial Age)

2012-06-07T05:03:15Z

Criegod: /* More on "uniqueness" -- ~~~~ */ new section

== Get serious -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 18:19, 5 June 2012 (PDT) ==

I've only listened to the first hour of this. And i liked it. But i thought it was fairly typical, as a critique of the idea that human beings have, in general, regarding their particular "uniqueness" among the animals, in that a fair amount of the critique really couldn't be taken too seriously; but, rather, is a reflection of a sort of _anti-human_ bias. I can understand feeling this way, but it doesn't make for an objective critique.

The problem is that an objective critique would do a much better job of pinpointing the real differences between human beings and other animals, and not taking the easy (short-circuit) way out by citing how abominable the results of the exercise of many of our abilities (not necessarily unique, whatsoever) have been.

When i relisten, i will note specifics where i feel the critique falls short: stopping at the easy jibe and failing to go further into exploring the nature and ramifications of the real differences.

It is my view that the real differences lie virtually totally in the domain of human possession of a written language and the consequences of that. Cetaceans, in my view, can certainly reason every bit as well as we can, in any domain of importance to them. Take away the cerebral cortex and, in terms of feeling and emotions, i don't think there is one whit of meaningful difference between humans, dogs, rats or what have you. So we accumulate stories and information in ways (using a mechanism) that no other animal does or can (i suppose). Having stories written down, having them persist independent (to some extent) of any particular individual or individuals, this has far-reaching implications for what kind of culture develops. I think there may even be something fundamentally wrong where the culture/institutions can "take control" over individuals themselves. The written word is a dead thing and perhaps we'd, ultimately, be better off without it, but (in my view) it is certainly what makes us "unique" (culturally, really; not individually).

As an aside, i have long-believed that a serious error people make is in assuming that whatever uniqueness human beings have _in their culture and its manifestations_ is automatically conferred upon themself as an individual. Apparently this applies to people who don't know how a computer works, don't understand the basics of widely-used human technologies, don't really understand basic scientific principles... etc. This is a serious problem, actually, because it means that people, as human beings, are really not what they think they are. Thus their willingness to believe all the crappola regarding human "uniqueness". Because our _culture_ has accumulated knowledge (via the written word) and this has enabled so many things beyond the understanding of virtually all individual human beings, this leads people to think that this is _their_ (as an individual) accomplishment. Or if not theirs, it _could_ be theirs -- and is, by proxy. But this is wrong. The culture is an accomplishment that no single individual could ever accomplish, encompass or understand as an individual. Therefore the existence of all so-called marvellous human accomplishments are not the result of _any_ uniqueness in human nature that exists at the level of the individual. This is perfectly clear.

== "Uniqueness" -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 20:09, 6 June 2012 (PDT) ==

Answering my own objection (talking to myself)... i have a problem with my last sentence. Human beings are unique... different from any other species (as even individuals within a species are themselves unique, in some sense). Humans are unique. So what. So are monkeys and rats and cockroaches. Uniqueness has no value judgment associated with it. _Superiority_ does. Thus we unpack the real meaning of "uniqueness."

This type of analysis often gets caught up in attempting to find unique attributes with which to ascribe human "uniqueness" (mostly accepted as a given because of the magnitude of the change we have wrought upon the world and ourselves). It seems a bit wrong-headed to think that there is any single attribute that is so different from that attribute in any other animal that we can ascribe our "uniqueness" to this attribute. What really is responsible for the unique amplification of our abilities and nature is a particular combination of attributes. The dexterity to write, the vocal arrangements to speak, the frontal cortical areas to build models and use language, etc.

== More on "uniqueness" -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 22:03, 6 June 2012 (PDT) ==

Bringing together a _number_ of different evolved attributes to create something more than the sum of its parts is evolution's strategy when an animal is not particularly well-suited to _any_ particular (fairly static) environment. This is probably the reason why we human beings are the way we are... having come from the forest and lived on the savannah, and then losing the environment that best suited us due to climate change. I don't understand the exact nature of the environment that fit us well enough to survive as neanderthals (say... still quite the generalists), then not so well, so that evolutionary pressure was on us to be still _more_ adaptable, but i believe it had to do with the end of an ice age. (?) And at this point, farming became something we "chose" to do, rather than chose _not_ to do (even though we knew how) because of cultural changes; changes in human organization; changes brought on by climate. A fascinating subject, which i don't understand the details of. It would make a good show.

The greater sum of the parts, it turns out, provided us with _more_ adaptability than we needed. But "waste not, want not"... and so we've collectively attempted to use every bit of our abilities (i think the "ruling class" pushed us into it, frankly, for their own benefit) and the result has been domination and destruction on a grand scale. We could have survived doing much less, and been better off for it. So why the positive valuation of "work"? It has to do, i believe, with a process of expropriation driven by "elites" which originated with the first permanent settlements, farming and excess production. This is the "uniqueness" of human culture that so differentiates us from other species which, being naturally better suited to their environment, have no real need for all this manipulation and changing of it to suit them (until they go extinct, of course).

The survival value of the tools of manipulation that humans have evolved (intrinsic and man-made, individually and culturally) have synergized into something far more powerful than strictly needed for survival. This is not really an accomplishment of human beings so much as sheer happenstance. The "uniqueness" of human beings comes from the fact that the particularities of our social nature, and the emergence of a "disease" growing out of the gap between our evolved and our human-created social structures, results in unequal and unfair class-based social structures that motivate the "ruling-class" that seemingly inevitably emerges to focus far too much of our accumulating cultural capability along an axis of domination and control.

This story may have some holes in it, but i like it and continue to work
on refining it.

Talk:606 - Flight From Meaning 1 (The Superior Human, Debt in The Axial Age)

2012-06-07T03:09:39Z

Criegod: /* "Uniqueness" -- ~~~~ */ new section

Talk:606 - Flight From Meaning 1 (The Superior Human, Debt in The Axial Age)

2012-06-06T01:19:24Z

Criegod: Get serious -- ~~~~

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-06T00:38:35Z

Criegod: /* Hard work as a universal value -- Criegod 17:34, 5 June 2012 (PDT) */

== Daniel Everett -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 09:23, 22 May 2012 (PDT) ==

I just listened to episode 602 last night. As I was listening to [[Daniel Everett]] speak, several times I thought that I couldn't recall ever having heard anyone be so wrong about so many things in listening to an Unwelcome Guests show before. I wonder if anyone else had that reaction? I'd have to go back and relisten to recall specifics.

It's been a while, so I don't recall what [[Charles Eisenstein]] had to say about Everett in The [[Ascent of Humanity]] ("the linguist [he] describes in chapter 2..."). It makes me wonder what the nature and relevance of this description was?

=== Specifics -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 10:14, 23 May 2012 (PDT) ===
Everett has had a pretty unusual life experience, so it's expected that some of his viewpoints may strike you as strange or wrong. So far I didn't get any feedback on this episode by Email -- if other listeners would like to chip in their thoughts then this is the place. Some specifics would be good to serve as starting points for discussion.

====Re: Specifics -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 21:44, 4 June 2012 (PDT)====

I made some notes when I relistened to this show and here they are:

Part I

* ''No other species that would sit around a fire just to sit around a fire... enjoying one another's company.'' - I hope the key aspect wasn't sitting around a ''fire''
* ''a bunch of bananas will be shared politely by humans because we have a sense of community but chimpanzees... there would be a bloodbath. We are "the cooperative species and work together like no other species does."'' Ha ha.
* ''Only humans have a "theory of mind"'' - Presumes that chimps are the relevant comparison... if chimps can't do something, then ''only humans can do it''.
* ''Sally puts ball in basket. Andy puts ball in box. Children say she'll look in basket. "That's not something any other creature can do, is to think that some other creature of the same species has a mind alike."'' - So wrong!

Part II

* Hard work as a universal value!
* Nations imitate nations. An absurd idea.

== expanding on "nations imitating nations" -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 17:18, 5 June 2012 (PDT) ==

Just to say that the idea of nations imitating nations is absurd fails to convey any real information. So, to clarify my statement... the problem i have with the idea (expressed by Daniel Everett) is that it presumes that a nation can be meaningfully dealt with (conceptually) as a unitary entity. Perhaps in some cases this isn't _completely_ misleading or unhelpful to think this way, but almost always it is (i believe), depending on the specific aspect of the nation's behavior or nature at issue.

In my view, no meaningful analysis of a nation can leave out the recognition that the nation is _not_ a unitary entity: that it consists of a very large number of "ordinary" people, and a very small number who "control" the levers which operate the machine (there are gradations within the upper strata but recognition of these distinctions are only important when the analysis seeks to reach a much deeper level of understanding of how the system works than achievable via the more simple model).

It may be fairly meaningful to talk of elites in one nation "imitating" elites in another (more a matter of responding to the same sorts of incentives in similar fashion, really). It may be meaningful to talk of popular culture in one nation being influenced, roughly speaking, by popular culture in another. But to talk of nations imitating nations implicitly conflates so many different things that (imo) it can only serve to obscure and confuse the issues at hand. Which is exactly what i perceived to be the outcome of Everett's thinking on the subject.

== Hard work as a universal value -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 17:34, 5 June 2012 (PDT) ==

I'm on a roll... i guess. Re this point... who wants to work hard? I mean "work" as in: imposed by and for the benefit of others. This is the real meaning of the word, depending on which ideas in a bag ful of incompatible ideas you wish to keep and which you wish to throw out in order to arrive at a coherent concept within the context of the truly significant ways the word is used within the culture and the machine in which we live. Same with the word "job". The idea of working hard as a generally accepted value is, in my view, one of the most widely spread, accepted, and successful pieces of propaganda ever perpetrated upon ordinary people by "capitalists," e.g. those who parasitize the efforts and accomplishments of others (in a more subtle and indirect fashion than the feudalists).

I have no interest whatsoever in working and see no virtue in this supposed universal value. I wish to play. Play often involves serious effort. But it's still fun. Work is not fun. The reward for work is in the future rather than in the present. The nature of modern industrial, technological society often makes the strategy of working to attain something a good (best of undesirable) choice.

In modern-day society we work for the system itself, rather than for other individuals (usually). The linkages embodying the expropriation process are so complex and (often) hidden that we (mostly) accept the idea that work is a virtue. But do people _really_ believe this? Do most people really (whole-heartedly, deeply) accept the intrinsic value of work? I think: only when they are fully brainwashed by the system. Otherwise, they go along with it, but reluctantly and with a great deal of deep resentment (that often never rises to the level of consciousness).

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-06T00:35:54Z

Criegod:

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-06T00:34:07Z

Criegod: /* Hard work as a universal value -- ~~~~ */ new section

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-06T00:18:41Z

Criegod: /* expanding on "nations imitating nations" -- ~~~~ */ new section

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-05T23:59:57Z

Criegod:

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-06-05T04:44:37Z

Criegod: /* Specifics -- Robin 10:14, 23 May 2012 (PDT) */

== Daniel Everett -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 09:23, 22 May 2012 (PDT) ==

I just listened to episode 602 last night. As i was listening to [[Daniel Everett]] speak, several times I thought that I couldn't recall ever having heard anyone be so wrong about so many things in listening to an Unwelcome Guests show before. I wonder if anyone else had that reaction? I'd have to go back and relisten to recall specifics.

It's been a while, so I don't recall what [[Charles Eisenstein]] had to say about Everett in The [[Ascent of Humanity]] ("the linguist [he] describes in chapter 2..."). It makes me wonder what the nature and relevance of this description was?

=== Specifics -- [[User:Robin|Robin]] 10:14, 23 May 2012 (PDT) ===
Everett has had a pretty unusual life experience, so it's expected that some of his viewpoints may strike you as strange or wrong. So far I didn't get any feedback on this episode by Email -- if other listeners would like to chip in their thoughts then this is the place. Some specifics would be good to serve as starting points for discussion.

====Re: Specifics -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 21:44, 4 June 2012 (PDT)====

:: I made some notes when i relistened to this show and here they are:

No other species that would sit around a fire just to sit around
a fire... enjoying one another's company.

I hope the key aspect wasn't sitting around a _fire_

bunch of bananas will be shared politely by humans because we
have a sense of community but chimpanzees... there would be a
bloodbath. We are "the cooperative species and work together
like no other species does." Ha ha.

Only humans have a "theory of mind".
Presumes that chimps are the relevant comparison... if chimps can't do
something, then _only humans can do it_.

Sally puts ball in basket. Andy puts ball in box. Children say she'll
look in basket.

"That's not something any other creature can do, is to think that some
other creature of the same species has a mind alike."

So wrong!

Part II

Hard work as a universal value!
Nations imitate nations. An absurd idea.

Talk:602 - Ancient Languages of The Future (1) (The Piraha, Non-Violent Communication)

2012-05-22T16:23:10Z

Criegod: Daniel Everett -- ~~~~

== Daniel Everett -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 09:23, 22 May 2012 (PDT) ==

I just listened to episode 602 last night. As i was listening to Daniel Everett speak, several times i thought that i couldn't recall ever having heard anyone be so wrong about so many things in listening to an Unwelcome Guests show before. I wonder if anyone else had that reaction? I'd have to go back and relisten to recall specifics.

It's been a while, so i don't recall what Charles Eisenstein had to say about Everett in The Ascent of Humanity ("the linguist [he] describes in chapter 2..."). It makes me wonder what the nature and relevance of this description was?

Talk:571 - Mother Nature Knows Best (Masanobu Fukuoka, Helen and Scott Nearing)

2011-10-12T12:44:14Z

Criegod: Great show -- ~~~~

== Great show -- [[User:Criegod|Criegod]] 05:44, 12 October 2011 (PDT) ==

Scott Nearing, to me, was one of the most admirable people i've ever "encountered" (not personally)... sustaining this view even upon close scrutiny.

And i ordered "The One-Straw Revolution" immediately after hearing the first part of the show.

A totally inspiring show.