Curious.

[barbarianhorde]

Anyone who has had a real thought in his life knows the absolute resistance these things cause in all of the world.

And there are indeed, very few people who have a thought and muster the courage to see it through, to see it proven.

And once it is proven there are still quite few who see it accepted.

The lefts fashionable idea on true thought is that it just "comes to the human species" without anyones individual genius being utterly necessary to it. After all that would be "racist" to anyone who isn't a hardworking genius.

Any weak-minded scumbag sucking blood from an office could have discovered the wavelength of released electron spin. And anyone could have deciphered the useful implications. Right?

[Mowk]

Re: Curious.

Postby barbarianhorde » Tue Sep 24, 2019 2:27 pm
"If you are the only one on the planet that believes something is true, it is the best indication it isn't."

Like these fools Newton and Copernicus should have known. It's best to distrust your findings because the rabble around you knows best.

Brilliant.

Funny you should mention Newton and Copernicus. Do you believe for a moment, other people weren't thinking along these lines all along. That they were soley unique in their thinking? That no one else could conceive of such relationships?

It is always a race for the credit with the human species. Yeah if it weren't for these folks we give the credit to we'd all be left in the stone age.

Oh God.
You clearly haven't read these people or their contemporaries, and have fallen for the leftist mongoloids idea that "if they weren't the lucky ones to have discovered it someone else would have!"

Bravo.
I see stupidity and mob-opinionating is closer to your heart than thought.

Well that should go along nicely with asshole, don't you imagine. A trifecta of sorts. My statement was a belief that can not be empirically tested. It was a hunch, and will always be a hunch. I mean there is a lot of dogma that claims we are all so individual and our thoughts are ours and ours alone. No one else but Newton could have done it. Who is credited for inventing the light bulb? No one else would have thought of such things. We'd all be in the dark.

You do have some attitude about me don't you?

[Mowk]

Anyone who has had a real thought in his life knows the absolute resistance these things cause in all of the world.

And there are indeed, very few people who have a thought and muster the courage to see it through, to see it proven.

And once it is proven there are still quite few who see it accepted.

The lefts fashionable idea on true thought is that it just "comes to the human species" without anyones individual genius being utterly necessary to it. After all that would be "racist" to anyone who isn't a hardworking genius.

Any weak-minded scumbag sucking blood from an office could have discovered the wavelength of released electron spin. And anyone could have deciphered the useful implications. Right?

Not "anyone", but I certainly imagine "someone" else could. To be clear. Newton was no anyone, he was a someone. Thinking in terms of heros and Idols can do that. The same universe is available to us all to observe, there are some more observant than many others.

[Mowk]

Leftism at this point is a threat in the sense that it is pure stupidity coupled with pure weakness couple with pure cowardice and all this in extremely great numbers. I think we can all agree on that.
But what is the long term effect of this?

So, "leftism" is stupidity, coupled with weakness, coupled with cowardice, in extreme numbers.

Nope I don't agree with that definition of leftism. I have stated previously that on the right we have those who would believe in every man for himself, a selfish slant on survival of the fittest, on the left we have those that believe we are going to have to share more equitably in the resources if we are to survive. I would imagine of the population on the planet, there exists a lot of people with a subscription towards one or the other survival strategies yet are too weak and cowardly to stand up for either. I've met a lot of people that aren't that smart, but I still consider them human. Intelligence alone is not enough to establish another species between us. A smart duck and a dumb duck are still both ducks.

[Mowk]

I might refine the thinking regarding the difference between those on the right and those on the left perhaps less politically. Right leaning thinking believes in individual responsibility, left leaning subscribe to humanity as responsibility. Right leaning believe they are individually responsible, left leaning think of communal responsibility. Right thinkers blame/credit others for their circumstances, left thinkers blame themselves just as much.

I don't take credit for much. I can't claim any credit for where I was born, to whom I was born to, and what combination of genes resulted in who I am. I can't take credit for how smart I am or how dumb I can appear to be. Man there is a whole history of others doing what they have done for millennia that has brought me to where I am this day.

I had no role in the creation of that garden, the two individuals who lived there, or the snake, or any of that myth. Yet I am stuck with the historical consequences of others buying into it. The history of man thinking it a god and the consequences that followed.

Whether on the right or the left its a gene that neither the right nor the left can take credit for ending up with. What is done with life past that point of conception depends an awful lot on the circumstance of history.

I don't blame you for inheriting the gene, nor will I hold you solely responsible with what you have done with it. How's that for left leaning ideology.

I am not the droid you are looking to blame. (waves hand mysteriously) It is a grand illusion.

Just who's mindful corruption ordered you to come looking for me anyway? I'd guess the myth to which you appear to subscribe is as fucked up as any individual's can be, and I still don't hold you individually responsible, and yet here you are, wrestling for the credit. Nope, it can be observed you've had an awful lot of "assistance".

[Mowk]

The post originally here, was not a well thought out contribution. The thought did not stem from the vacuum in space referred to as Mowk. I believe I allowed something perhaps shitty to seep in. Mea culpa. At least it wasn't a thought uniquely mine. I didn't pen it but I sure repeated it. Yeah so I can admit to a brain soaking but I swear no soap or solvent was added. I can not claim a lot of agitation hasn't been added. Tell me you believe that is the same as a good washing. At best it could pass for a rinse.

[Meno_]

I have been repeatedly accused of for being ideologically fixated , but for me it has worked, and as per the reduction of.phenomenology toward absurd notions , or wavering around them, the defensive simplicity works.
Sartre disallowed such caricaturish existential descriptions, but nevertheless he became his own ideological victim: by having to bracket at some point such slide into the pre-existing condition .
How the 'Nausea' could prevent a bad faith to creep into a literature of accesses, is perhaps a too wide a question to ask, however Echo the goddess was condemned never to ask the original question .
Narcissus had an edge, from that point on, but few understand the ramifications.
Whether the left and the right are ultimately fated to recognise that the level of absurd , differentiation becomes a treasonable punishment , where really, ultimately, there was none, has no current implicative value towards any model of correct social action.
The idea was, prior to the politics of alleged betrayal of Socrates, and the successive ideological shift toward Aristotle, became unanimous.

These minor character flaws echoed through the ages, with a tremendous effects stemming from Alcibiades'treachury.
What is considered right nowadays, is no longer considered as such for practical purposes, where 'practical' and 'purposeful' appear equitable .
But as it is, they are not. The effectivity connecting them springs from hope eternal, neither of which has much to do, either singularly , nor structurally with each other.
Myths become planted after a certain repetitious recycle occurs , after which axiomatic usage makes derivation unnecessary. They morph into necessary presumptions, and cutting them from verifiable 'reality', becomings minimally and invariably invasive. counter productive and even catastrophic.effects can result.
That was a proposition recognised , which Kant must have recognised, and
that is what is what probably happening in today's 'Trumpism'.
Damned if I will and damned if I will not.
It is purely a necessity , automatically , axiomatically and politically. It is where both are partially differentiated a-priori to pre-Socratic levels, (without the possibility of public regard.)originating all the bias.
So the proposed paradigmn is: the partial reductive absurd notion of negation as an abstracted fallacy , countering any notion of common sense.

Presumptions become necessary defenses against the onslaught against such works as ' Anti-Duhring' causing necessary reified content.

[Mowk]

Some people are hypnotically suggestible and some are not. There seems a bit more then just culture taking place. Can brainwashing be defined as anything but cultural?

There are degrees of having one's psyche be malleable. I would use brainwashing to cover very specific types of aggressive short term processes where people are being moved from viewpoint A to viewpoint B very consciously, likely by a team that is thinking of this particular individual and how to break them down and move them along. I do see similarities between this and what happens more en masse, but I'd want to reserve that word for what I describe. And yes, some people are easier to break down in these intense brainwashing sessions. And also some people are more suseptible to manipulation that is aimed widely and not individually, via parenting, schooling, and the various media, including advertising, music and film, news and so on. A lot of this is implicit and the people writing and creating the passing on of memes are just carriers. IOW no specific conspiracy or plan. They got infected and pass on the ideas. I think nurture and nature affect how much one can resist. Do the parents treat you like an agent and allow you to question things? did the pedagogy encourage it? (very rare) What was your group of friends like? Were you through happenstance exposed to anomalies in official stories, in expert or mainstream opinion at some point? I think one incident where you encounter something that speaks radically against a common view, can lead one to question consensus or subculture consensus in all or many areas?

I think innate temperment is a big factor also. Though this is harder to track.

I'd like to respond to this. It's the stuff in bold that made me recoil at what I've become. Parents, dad got irritated when I thought too much and asked too many questions. He interpreted my curiosity as a way to avoid doing my chores. While actually I was thinking about making them easier to perform. When we raked leaves in the fall he insisted we fill garbage cans with the leaves and haul them to the front yard and dump them, then return. I suggested using a large tarp, the leaves could be raked directly onto it, It held far more then a garbage can could, it was easier to dump, and the weight of the return trip was reduced dramatically. We finished the job in half the time that year. He never said good show. I didn't get along with my father well. Mom was a charm, well read, thoughtful and she was aware the sort of thoughts that ran through my head. She always said I had great potential but never really clarified what that meant. She was disappointed with my grades in school, put me through a battery of childhood development and personality tests. Most of my teachers thought I was a clown in the classroom, a distraction. I didn't thrive well in a parochial school system which my parents insisted on. First crack at college got me expelled. Returned a few years later and graduated top of my class. Majored in Art, minored in aesthetics, the only branch of philosophy I studied formally accept for a few general ed required courses. Four Professors stood out, two were amazing, the other two were amazing too but chided be insistently that I wouldn't have the stamina to make it as an artist. I didn't, One retired the other's contract wasn't renewed many years latter, teaching classical dance now at a small local school. As far as friends, never had a group of friends, don't to this day. One of my friends molested my youngest sister, the best man at my wedding, developed a bad infatuation over the same sister and was latter diagnosed with metal illness. He never was the same after that and the friendship died by the wayside. Those who I considered friends didn't turn out so friendly so I pretty much just keep everyone at arms length. In that way I am my own best friend and worst enemy. Everyone else on the planet fits somewhere in between.

I think temperament, has a lot to do with it. During a bad period of thinking after 9/11 I was diagnosed with ptsd. Repeated nightmares of a violent nature, couldn't sleep or eat, poor job performance, nearly unable to function, my shrink tried to hypnotize me, said i wasn't suggestible. Spent a lot of time on my introversion. Didn't help much, was a slow recovery.

I guess the possibility of me being brainwashed by my own self imposed isolation is possible, don't read much, perhaps cause I wanted to figure it out on my own. The answers others provided never made much sense.

But perhaps your questions were rhetorical. Shrug. I gotta come to terms with what I've become sooner or later. Miserable, an asshole, and retarded by some estimates. Being my own best friend I am aware of another side. Some people may see it, I really don't know. I can be clever. I can earn a lot more value for myself working for myself then I ever could working for the man. Never demanded a raise in my life. Never took a hand out either. I shovel my own shit. Grow a lot of my own food. And I help others before I attend to my own shit if priorities require.

And you know what, I'm really starting to get irritated by the younger generation with the nads to call me brainwashed. But leaning left I can cut them some slack.

[Mowk]

I have not yet put this thought down completely and now wish to return to it. I asked for examples yet none were forthcoming. If I may present a sort of example of the validity a belief in leftist media's attempts at swinging opinion "brainwashing". A sort of political way of influencing the thoughts of others, as an aid in the discussion.

I'd like to introduce, as example, the media hype surrounding the young environmentalist Greta Thunberg. She holds some rather exaggerated positions regarding the environment, such as her recent claims that ecosystems are in collapse all over the planet. I thought that a rather incredulous statement. So, I did some poking around. I did an internet search on collapsed ecosystems and found three examples presented as representation of a collapsed ecosystem. Before I did this poking I assumed a collapsed ecosystem was one that could no longer support life, where extinction was taking place, but as I poked a bit further I found that is not how the expression is used. A collapsed ecosystem is one where the predominant species consumer of resources was no longer present in the ecosystem, yet other species populations are increasing in its place. What is called a collapsed ecosystem is actually an imbalance caused by human intervention, where due to over-harvesting, and environmental changes a shift in the species an ecosystem can support has taken place. The predominant species that was once found in abundance can no longer acquire the resources it needed to survive and other species, perhaps, more suited to adaptation are taking it's place. In this opinion the leftist media increasing this hype is responsible for inaccurately, and exaggeratedly stating a case that is already inaccurate and an exaggerated example.

She also made the statement that species are going extinct and sighted as example the Northern White Rhino. There are two subspecies of the White Rhino, the Northern White and the Southern White Rhino. The subspecies distinction is not limited only by their respective geographic habitats but also subtle physiological differences, like the size of a back hump, a difference in forehead structure and the presence of ridges along the sides of their necks. In the case of the Northern White Rhino, the population has been reduced due to over hunting to the point there are just two remaining examples in the wild, both females, so the prognosis is not good for chances for reproduction, within that subspecies. The Southern White Rhino's population during the last census was estimated in the range between 19,000 and 21,000 individuals. A subspecies is on the brink of extinction, but the population of the species as a whole doesn't even meet the determination of endangered, while it is considered threatened.

With our animal husbandry practices, we have introduced a wide variety of species differentiation. Take for example the emergence of the Chocolate Labrador. The species was once limited to a Black colored Labs, but a reticent gene for lighter coat color was expressing itself in the population of black labs. Males and females that held this gene for lighter coat colors were crossed bred to influence the likelihood of this genes expression, until a stable Golden Lab was produced. That is to say the breeding between two Golden Labs was more likely to express a golden color to their coats than a black color. Now interbreeding of Golden Labs and Black Labs is taking place and a coat color in between the dark version and light colored versions has taken place. Further interbreeding of Labs with coat colors in between have created a stabilized expression of a Chocolate colored Labrador Retriever. So on one hand our affects on one species is reducing a single subspecies while on the other hand our practices of hybridization are creating a more diverse subspecies presence in a population of animals. How these species interactions within an ecosystem is changing the landscape isn't completely understood. If the Northern savannas of Africa are changing due the decreased presence of the subspecies, Northern White Rhino, it seems an easy enough solution to transplant members of the Southern White Rhino into North Africa, to create a new hybrid that could perform the same function in maintaining the balance of the ecosystem of the northern savanna in Africa.

How critical is the loss of a subspecies, due to mans involvement in the reduction of that species population to the point of extinction? It is an important philosophical question, yet it is also an important scientific question.

I doubt this sort of influence can be considered brain washing but it sure seems an example of an attempt to influence human thinking. So is what is taking place economically all over the internet; the mining of individual preference data in the hopes of increasing the consumption of a good or a service, as a human behavior, not also an example of attempts to influence human attitudes. This sort of pressure is being masterminded by those on the right side of the equation. It is systematic, and pervasive, targeted and directed with the same sort of methodologies exhibited from the left. Get a population hooked on a device, and use that device to gather data that increased the likelihood of an increased dependency on the device and furthered capability to affect human behavior. It is difficult to say which is the more accurate example of brainwashing taking place or if it can even be called brainwashing. It is more akin to the politics of influencing an others opinion. Neither side seems to be practicing any sort of honesty in what is taking place.

Are we capable of assessing the issues from a more balanced perspective then lumping the blame on just one side or the other? I was hoping that a sort of breaking the ice with examples might lubricate the thought processes of others to present further examples and discuss the questions raised from a more balanced perspective.

[promethean75]

i used to be an eco-fascist back in my pre-anarchist/nihilist days, so i was all about the precedence of the environment. still am, actually, but only if everyone agreed to work together in a concerted effort. until that day, i'm throwing empty mcdonalds cups out my window like i've always done in an effort to trash the world and force a devolution into anarcho-primitivism so we can start over.

but this greta thing. i don't like it. it smells bad, like a disingenuous liberal stage-prop used to solicit sympathy from an audience who's been duped into believing global warming is worse than it really is. oh its happening alright... but not nearly as bad and fast as they say. but i am totally on board with the whole 'anti capitalism' message, just for other reasons. not because capitalism is destroying the planet. industry is destroying the planet, and capitalism is industries bitch. if you build factories... they will come, as it were. what we gotta do is put the breaks on industry, and to do that, incidentally, we gotta hang the capitalists.

yeah but that greta clip almost gave me nightmares. it was surreal, man. that accent and that twisted face. *shivers*

omg get away from me!

[Pedro I Rengel]

[Pedro I Rengel]

White person disease.

[Pedro I Rengel]

To be clear, I don't ascribe the new ecostupid to you, p. In that movie, you would be the priest. I also didn't watch the movie the whole way through, as I have a low tolerance for propaganda these days. But that is what you have attached yourself to. And the disease is the same.

I had another point I think, but this whole ecotard shit makes my brain drowsy.

[Pedro I Rengel]

This is why the world hates white people: (instinctively, even if they can't put it into words, the words have been lashed out of them)

Glaciers are melting. Ok, Half the world must be starved. for the glaciers.

fucking white people.

[Pedro I Rengel]

She's wrong though, King Miguel wasn't brought in from Africa. He was born in America.

[Pedro I Rengel]

It's also not true that he "died" some time after and his "followers" went on fucking with the Spanish. They were all cornered into a cliff and slaughtered.

[Pedro I Rengel]

They probably got mixed up with an Indian rebel that made some alliances with other Indians and died in more or less the way she describes. That alliance was ultimately defeated, but in the case of the Indians their followers did maintain a campaign of fucking with the Spanish that pretty much goes on to this day.

[Mowk]

So Pedro, Interesting your reaction to Prom's remark, but what of the question of curious? Where are we on those grounds?

[Pedro I Rengel]

Like the OP?

I unno...

Like can the left-right dichotomy be overcome? Is that what you're asking? Like how do western political schools of thought compare to Arabian ones? Is that the question?

You asking me to address a Muslim's contempt for European culture? Is that it? do you think that can be answered in terms of left and right? Is Arabia just a equal but different iteration of our own society? Of a kind of Platonic society of which we are both different manifestations?

Nigga you gotta getcho shit straight.

[Mowk]

It was an open question whitey. Use your imagination to fill in the blanks. No expectations other then your point of view being where you are and what you think. It's ain't like I'm handing out a test or anything. Roll with your thinking not yer bitchin. A bitch has gotta bitch and a thinker has to think. I can respect a little of both, if you'd give me a little credit for being white. That shit ain't never going to get straight. So what? You think it's a question that refers to east and west or right and left or up and down or Greta and Iphones. I think you missed the mark. It isn't any one of these things but all of them. You can pick your fav. But what about brainwashed? It's like pulling fuckin teeth.

[Pedro I Rengel]

ugh...

[Pedro I Rengel]

Fucking virgos.

I'll put it this way.

Good men like you wallowing in general musings of ambiguity and reveling in the enticing feeling of lostness from a well funded perch are what is bringing us all down. The Gretas, the real crazies are a minority. It is your allowance aligned with the stringent morality which you conveniently never question that gives them power. Greta just speaks at the UN, you all made it. You all still run it. In the sense that you fund it, really. Y'all still the ones mostly moving the money around. Fucking windmills.

A little philosophy. Ain't gonna hurt ya. You're in the right. Start from there.

[Mowk]

The last time I checked on the world stage of income I fell just over the 23 percentile. That is some comfort beyond starving I agree. But fairly far from moving much money around. I'm tryin to be a good man. My wife and I live in a 100+ year old home that's 1500 square feet. 750 square feet per person. That's some where between France and Denmark as an average. Shit our garden is bigger then that. You suggesting despite my rank I might have a chance of meeting your expectation?

Fucking virgos is right. And 59 wasn't a great year for philosophy.

[Pedro I Rengel]

You misunderstand me completely.

You know that authority you feel when you chastise someone because you felt they were disrespectful or something? The one that conveniently turns into: "I'm just a simple man with a straw bed and a straw hat" whenever it is addressed? That is true wealth. Let's imagine the old saying is true and money is not the most important thing.

[Pedro I Rengel]

And no, I can't just let it go.

23%? How many thousand square feet?

Top men in certain societies would kill other top men for what you have. I understand not whipping yourself over what you have, but you could at least not be blazé about it.