http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oBBWX71H1lk
[Under these conditions], [[this] will always be the case].
The existence of this logic-type equation in conjunction with emotion will
provide ample movement for the changing of realities. With just emotion, there is mostly just crying, whining, or suffering. With just logic/thought, there is mostly just ideas and possibilities. The combination of emotion and logic is the equation for that which comes into being from thought to what is called reality.
An overabundance of emotion in comparison with the logic side of the combinatory action is what is then considered "dangerous" for those who are more likely to be the opposite of this; an overabundance of logic in comparison with emotion makes for someone who has lots of ideas, yet sees also the people with the overabundant emotion and feels sad
These people with a stronger tendency for logic, grouped together, will nonetheless assign emotional aspects in similar fashion that the people with an overabundance in emotion do. Since at this point the polarization has probably happened, these people with the overabundance of logic will probably be called hypocrites.
Monday, April 5, 2010
re: "Contact me if you would like to discuss this further" (dswright71)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mB8_wPei2ZM
"Intelligent and articulate comment, hooray! I agree with all you said except your contention that control and repression are "unnatural". It is our animal territoriality that is behind most repression, that and the desire to control comes from our animal desire for "alpha" status. i believe humans only become enlightened when they control the animal within and not vice versa. Contact me if you wanna discuss this further."
I disagree that we become enlightened when we control our animal nature, to put out at the first what the difference between us is about.
However, I also agree, because, so far, controlling the animalistic nature has been the best method to being able to "get around to" enlightenment, especially because of the religiousity that the human species has had. A lot of what I base my disagreement on is having listened to a lot of Alan Watts, and, since I still have not internalized his thoughts to mine such that I could explain it without referencing him, I reference him. You can find two playlists I have compiled of him on my channel, if you so care to watch them.
It has been, thus far, the inability to "deal with" and include others into our philosophies that, I think, has been at the core of animalistic territorialness. That is, put a group of people together who have different goals and different ways of thinking, and the base survival "kicks in" because there is a lack of communicative ability, or simply lack of tendency to communicate for them. And so, the other side of not communicating is that of war and conflict. If time stood still and this were a word problem, we could find a solution for it and there would be no need for war. Since that is not the case, the much faster version of this is that of physical movement and force.
With the internet, this will also occur. However, since this is the internet, I think, this tendency will slowly go away. I don't hope for it, but this seems to be the case - the internet is primarily for communication, and so with each of us pursuing our interests and projections (insecurities and probably boredom put large, to the internet, such as in the form of "trolling"), the inability to feel part of something without being part of a cult will dwindle. As thunderf00t put in one video, "the internet - where religions come to die".
Another part of this has been the thought that "atheism has nothing to offer", as proposed by many Christians, but especially TogetherForPeace. If we were geographically-situated, this criticism would hold foot, since there would be a lack of communication between parties and paranoia would spring loose and destroy the whole thing, resulting in a very political situation, an irony of its beginning.
I have spent what is probably too much time on the internet and on YouTube, and I feel the effects of it. My intent has been that of revising and reinventing memes, such that we could enjoy a better life. And a lot of us - basically everyone, including yourself - has been doing this.
It is arguable that my focus on religion misses a lot, and I think it does. What I have been focused on is the study of paranoia and group thinking, primarily because cults (especially Christianity, since I'm a former Christian) intrigue me. I think that one could have both the good stuffs of religion and of science, combined. To quote Einstein, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame." I think of it now as a sort of clean-up - religion provides the interest, and science cleans up after it. That's not to say that religion does nothing - without religion, there would be no reason to do science. It's like putting science on steriods.
And here we come back to the control aspect:
Rather than "controlling religion" and making it ameliable for science, I would rather both understand it and embrace it. The reason that it has not been embraced so far is, I think, mainly able communication, the lack of it, and the lack of being able to see what the other person sees. Religion provides what could be called "the third eye", as put forward by David Wilcock in his "2012 Enigma" video.
Religion is concerned with intent, with thought. Science is concerned with material, with manipulating matter. Because the effect of religion upon a person is the wanting to know (intent), and science is based on playing with shit to see what happens, there occurs a paranoia from religion about science (science "manipulating" religion "thought"; "manipulating thought"; uncaring and demonistic science). Intent often ignores the method; the method is all the science is concerned about. And so, this I think offers an explanation as to why there is a disconnect between religion and science.
However, and I think this part is interesting, when science debates religion, it does so in the background of religion -- why are the two debating? This is an intent-based start. Likewise, because interest and eyeballs (TV and the such) revolve around religion-esque-based thinking, the two sides are likely to become polarized, since the background is in religion. Accordingly, this type of science with be religion-ized. This then results in the argumentative, pompous, and disregarding type of attitude that is exemplified by thunderf00ts videos. When he was debating another YouTuber called VenomFangX, I ignored this. However, when he made similar videos about dropping out of college, this was an emotional spot for me, since I have opinions that are opposite his in this spectrum.
So, in summary, I think that understanding will, in the long run, be better than repression, and that YouTube provides and excellent playground for this.
"Intelligent and articulate comment, hooray! I agree with all you said except your contention that control and repression are "unnatural". It is our animal territoriality that is behind most repression, that and the desire to control comes from our animal desire for "alpha" status. i believe humans only become enlightened when they control the animal within and not vice versa. Contact me if you wanna discuss this further."
I disagree that we become enlightened when we control our animal nature, to put out at the first what the difference between us is about.
However, I also agree, because, so far, controlling the animalistic nature has been the best method to being able to "get around to" enlightenment, especially because of the religiousity that the human species has had. A lot of what I base my disagreement on is having listened to a lot of Alan Watts, and, since I still have not internalized his thoughts to mine such that I could explain it without referencing him, I reference him. You can find two playlists I have compiled of him on my channel, if you so care to watch them.
It has been, thus far, the inability to "deal with" and include others into our philosophies that, I think, has been at the core of animalistic territorialness. That is, put a group of people together who have different goals and different ways of thinking, and the base survival "kicks in" because there is a lack of communicative ability, or simply lack of tendency to communicate for them. And so, the other side of not communicating is that of war and conflict. If time stood still and this were a word problem, we could find a solution for it and there would be no need for war. Since that is not the case, the much faster version of this is that of physical movement and force.
With the internet, this will also occur. However, since this is the internet, I think, this tendency will slowly go away. I don't hope for it, but this seems to be the case - the internet is primarily for communication, and so with each of us pursuing our interests and projections (insecurities and probably boredom put large, to the internet, such as in the form of "trolling"), the inability to feel part of something without being part of a cult will dwindle. As thunderf00t put in one video, "the internet - where religions come to die".
Another part of this has been the thought that "atheism has nothing to offer", as proposed by many Christians, but especially TogetherForPeace. If we were geographically-situated, this criticism would hold foot, since there would be a lack of communication between parties and paranoia would spring loose and destroy the whole thing, resulting in a very political situation, an irony of its beginning.
I have spent what is probably too much time on the internet and on YouTube, and I feel the effects of it. My intent has been that of revising and reinventing memes, such that we could enjoy a better life. And a lot of us - basically everyone, including yourself - has been doing this.
It is arguable that my focus on religion misses a lot, and I think it does. What I have been focused on is the study of paranoia and group thinking, primarily because cults (especially Christianity, since I'm a former Christian) intrigue me. I think that one could have both the good stuffs of religion and of science, combined. To quote Einstein, "Religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame." I think of it now as a sort of clean-up - religion provides the interest, and science cleans up after it. That's not to say that religion does nothing - without religion, there would be no reason to do science. It's like putting science on steriods.
And here we come back to the control aspect:
Rather than "controlling religion" and making it ameliable for science, I would rather both understand it and embrace it. The reason that it has not been embraced so far is, I think, mainly able communication, the lack of it, and the lack of being able to see what the other person sees. Religion provides what could be called "the third eye", as put forward by David Wilcock in his "2012 Enigma" video.
Religion is concerned with intent, with thought. Science is concerned with material, with manipulating matter. Because the effect of religion upon a person is the wanting to know (intent), and science is based on playing with shit to see what happens, there occurs a paranoia from religion about science (science "manipulating" religion "thought"; "manipulating thought"; uncaring and demonistic science). Intent often ignores the method; the method is all the science is concerned about. And so, this I think offers an explanation as to why there is a disconnect between religion and science.
However, and I think this part is interesting, when science debates religion, it does so in the background of religion -- why are the two debating? This is an intent-based start. Likewise, because interest and eyeballs (TV and the such) revolve around religion-esque-based thinking, the two sides are likely to become polarized, since the background is in religion. Accordingly, this type of science with be religion-ized. This then results in the argumentative, pompous, and disregarding type of attitude that is exemplified by thunderf00ts videos. When he was debating another YouTuber called VenomFangX, I ignored this. However, when he made similar videos about dropping out of college, this was an emotional spot for me, since I have opinions that are opposite his in this spectrum.
So, in summary, I think that understanding will, in the long run, be better than repression, and that YouTube provides and excellent playground for this.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
The Use of Ideological Impracticality, part 2
The second part of Ideological Impracticality is that of having the common things that you do everyday profitable. Examples of this (thought perhaps not-so-pretty ones) might be PTCs, being paid to search, chat, and so forth.
The main difference between being paid to do something and not being paid to do something is whether the thing you're doing is beneficial to others and they can see how. What is the difference between a vlog and a movie? Presentation. Add to the some knowledge and understanding about the underlying principles, and one question, and you're set to make money, help people, or which or whatever.
The question is this: "How can what I'm doing be universalized?" An example of this would be the process of going through a DMCA and thinking, "Man, YouTube gives shitty service. How could they improve it?" or "Man, YouTube gives shitty service. How can I bypass their main mechanism and help others do it too so that the false flagging epidemic will be over?" The question, though it doesn't seem to be doing so, is meant for what might be called "intimate situations", because those are the ones that are most likely to not be utilized by most people.
The main difference between being paid to do something and not being paid to do something is whether the thing you're doing is beneficial to others and they can see how. What is the difference between a vlog and a movie? Presentation. Add to the some knowledge and understanding about the underlying principles, and one question, and you're set to make money, help people, or which or whatever.
The question is this: "How can what I'm doing be universalized?" An example of this would be the process of going through a DMCA and thinking, "Man, YouTube gives shitty service. How could they improve it?" or "Man, YouTube gives shitty service. How can I bypass their main mechanism and help others do it too so that the false flagging epidemic will be over?" The question, though it doesn't seem to be doing so, is meant for what might be called "intimate situations", because those are the ones that are most likely to not be utilized by most people.
The Use of Ideological Impracticality
I've been thinking about money recently. There are two main forms of people giving and getting recognition. One of those is money, and the other is emotion and talking. By this I mean that one form of exchange of ideas and value is that of currency, and another main form is that of talking.
When Ryan Faulk was debating that other guy in the 4-part series, Religious Communism, Ryan took the side of "the evil traders", and the other guy took the position that people would argue their case. Where it fell apart was what to do when, immediately, you might want to get some shoes: "Not through trade!"
The apex of these problems can be seen in trying to figure out how to apply a term that has been called both "anarchy" and "anti-statism", mainly because the connotation behind anarchy is that of chaos, which is not what is being recommended. Epitomized in the thought, "We HAVE anarchy," behind the thought of, "Well, if anarchy is people voluntarily organizing together and things just emerging as they will, didn't police, government, and the likewise, 'just emerge'?" This then seems to make the idea behind anarchy ("No more State!") pointless, since The State itself is emergent.
This is then, I think, the problem of 'preferring the worse solution because of ideology'; perhaps it could be called, "Ideological Impracticality". Likewise, this could be turned on its head -- ideally, as with the guy who was debating with Ryan, we would talk with each other and communicate our wants, and come together as a group. However - and this is where the ideological impracticality comes in - the solution of using money, using trade -- even the concept of trade -- is horrifying, because the other guy does not want to be under an overlord, doing the boring hourly-wage stuff, and generally not enjoying life. It's another case of, 'Well, they've both got a point, but...'
What the other guy is not against is trade. He's against being under some asshole who doesn't care about him, and he's against a boring job, and not enjoying himself. Since this is linked to trade, because how else would jobs come into the picture?, he doesn't like trade, and would rather get rid of it and just own stuff as per what he and others have done, and "present your case and you get your shit."
I think a solution might be some sort of money or meme system which starts out with currency and ends with a group hug, to paraphrase the idea. It's not a rejection of either side, but instead an inclusion of both, first using Trade as the means of connecting people and their interests, and then have it segue into a "group hug" type of thing. Obviously, this second part is what is lacking in the equation, and what I think would be an interesting topic for discussion.
When Ryan Faulk was debating that other guy in the 4-part series, Religious Communism, Ryan took the side of "the evil traders", and the other guy took the position that people would argue their case. Where it fell apart was what to do when, immediately, you might want to get some shoes: "Not through trade!"
The apex of these problems can be seen in trying to figure out how to apply a term that has been called both "anarchy" and "anti-statism", mainly because the connotation behind anarchy is that of chaos, which is not what is being recommended. Epitomized in the thought, "We HAVE anarchy," behind the thought of, "Well, if anarchy is people voluntarily organizing together and things just emerging as they will, didn't police, government, and the likewise, 'just emerge'?" This then seems to make the idea behind anarchy ("No more State!") pointless, since The State itself is emergent.
This is then, I think, the problem of 'preferring the worse solution because of ideology'; perhaps it could be called, "Ideological Impracticality". Likewise, this could be turned on its head -- ideally, as with the guy who was debating with Ryan, we would talk with each other and communicate our wants, and come together as a group. However - and this is where the ideological impracticality comes in - the solution of using money, using trade -- even the concept of trade -- is horrifying, because the other guy does not want to be under an overlord, doing the boring hourly-wage stuff, and generally not enjoying life. It's another case of, 'Well, they've both got a point, but...'
What the other guy is not against is trade. He's against being under some asshole who doesn't care about him, and he's against a boring job, and not enjoying himself. Since this is linked to trade, because how else would jobs come into the picture?, he doesn't like trade, and would rather get rid of it and just own stuff as per what he and others have done, and "present your case and you get your shit."
I think a solution might be some sort of money or meme system which starts out with currency and ends with a group hug, to paraphrase the idea. It's not a rejection of either side, but instead an inclusion of both, first using Trade as the means of connecting people and their interests, and then have it segue into a "group hug" type of thing. Obviously, this second part is what is lacking in the equation, and what I think would be an interesting topic for discussion.
Saturday, April 3, 2010
Those annoying google ads! (Does God Exist?)
There was an ad to the side of a video I was watching for Kalam arguments for and against the existence of God. The ad proposed "straightforward reasons to believe in God." Curious about which arguments were being used yet again, I checked the website. Here's what I found:
( http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CL-f4aLk6qACFec35wodSVeaHw )
Reason 1: Complexity/consternation argument.
Reason 2: First mover argument (which is part of an ongoing debate).
Reason 3: Complexity/consternation-but-orderly argument.
Reason 4: Complexity/consternation-but-orderly argument.
Reason 5: Pattern-making change cult paranoia effect. (I don't know what to call it).
Reason 6: Predictions.
Three of them rely on consternation. Ugh.
( http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html?gclid=CL-f4aLk6qACFec35wodSVeaHw )
Reason 1: Complexity/consternation argument.
Reason 2: First mover argument (which is part of an ongoing debate).
Reason 3: Complexity/consternation-but-orderly argument.
Reason 4: Complexity/consternation-but-orderly argument.
Reason 5: Pattern-making change cult paranoia effect. (I don't know what to call it).
Reason 6: Predictions.
Three of them rely on consternation. Ugh.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)