Essays, featured, latest
Comments 88

Consensus reality has outlived its evolutionary usefulness

Catte

“Consensus Reality” by primatemind

The nature of reality used to be a philosophical, metaphysical contemplation. But now it’s political. There’s a struggle going to to take ownership of what defines it. And our most instinctive ideas about what it is need to re-evaluated.

Reality beyond our immediate awareness is constructed from information received via personal anecdote to some extent, and beyond that, by information streaming services such as news outlets, blogs, independent journalists.

A process of reality-modification is ongoing, continuously updated, on a personal and a collective level. On the collective level reality is constructed through assimilation. Daily announcements are made – usually via mainstream or social media – that certain events have occurred or that a trend is being observed somewhere. These events/trends will be analysed, debated, compared to other similar or contrasting events/trends, and gradually synthesised into the ever-evolving thing we call “the real world.”

Interpretations of those events will differ, often splitting along quite predictable political or cultural lines. Crime statistics will be seen differently by supporters of the status quo than by those who oppose it. The same with other “controversial” topics such as immigration, poverty, war, gender rights etc etc.

The vast majority of these differences occur within an acceptance of the alleged event/trend. It’s rare that these differences extend to questioning whether or not the event/trend is even real.

There’s a good reason for this. In evolutionary terms, accepting collective narrative testimony as being broadly true is a rational thing to do. If you’re a tiny australopithecus in a huge and dangerous world, ignoring the fact the other australopithecines are screaming there’s a predator in that tree over there is unlikely to produce a good result. You go with the majority verdict on such things. Stay away from the tree and survive to evolve.

It’s equally rational, on this basic human level, to think that the larger the number of individuals telling you something, the greater the likelihood this something will be true. In a world view dominated by direct observation and – at most – second hand testimony, such multiple certitude is very very likely to be broadly grounded in fact.

If you’re a neolithic person and thirty of your relatives and friends are telling you those bushes over there have the best berries, and only one person – weird cousin Groot – is saying no, it’s those bushes over there, you’re probably wisest to go with the majority view, simply because the likelihood of thirty of your relatives lying to you or being mistaken about the berry situation is probably close to zero. These thirty people have been to the bushes themselves individually. They’ve seen the fruit. Their collective testimony is undeniably worth more than that of Og, the single outlier, whose observations could be confused or motivated by a spiteful desire for you to waste your time.

So our innate tendency to believe “majority” statements that are authenticated by collective observation is actually very sound and grounded in our evolution as a societal creature.

Where it begins to fail us is when increasing civilisation removes the proximity between the reporters of events/trends and the events/trends themselves.

From the moment the information about where to find the best berries comes, not from personal observation, but from an announcement on a clay tablet hung on the wall of the meeting house, the potential for confusion and/or disinformation increases dramatically. And at this point our instinct to trust the majority view becomes more of a hindrance than a help. Because when our thirty relatives come and tell us where the best berries are they are no longer offering you thirty individual firsthand testimonies. They are offering you the same, unverified, testimony thirty different times.

At this point, if weird cousin Groot comes and says he’s checked it out and the clay tablet is lying – it’s those bushes over there that have the best berries, he’s actually more likely, rationally speaking, to be correct, given he’s bothered to investigate and the thirty other people haven’t checked anything at all.

But if we were there, would we, as individuals, act on this likelihood? Would we even process it? Or would we just go with the flow and head off to the bushes the “majority” seem to be recommending? Would we likely point and laugh at Groot, trudging off to his silly old minority-endorsed berry patch. And would we likely continue laughing even when he comes back with huge amounts of luscious fruit, while we have almost none?

A strange truth about humanity is, once enough people have read something or heard something, and passed it on, our hardwired instinct to trust what our trusted people tell us begins to reinforce that information irresistibly, even in the face of refutation or evidence to the contrary, even in the face of clear proof it isn’t, and never was true.

Our consensus reality is stuffed with such anomalies. Relic “truths” that aren’t true. Relic “events” that never happened as recounted or never happened at all. Because collective, consensus “knowledge” trumps individual observation. It needed to for eons while we evolved. And now we can’t turn it off, even though it no longer makes any sense.

I’m not even discussing here the question of who controls the information on which our realities are built. This is discussed a great deal, and it’s vital. But there’s another question – viz how much does anyone control it – even those who like to think they do? To what extent has the invention of collective “truth” reached a point beyond control? Become self-pepetuating, impervious? Like a space probe in a vacuum, moving irresistibly in the direction it was propelled, simply because there’s nothing to stop it or slow it down?

Look at this one small example from recent “news.” The Guardian today has an article on “moped enabled crime“. It’s a problem. It’s increased by nearly 2,000% in four years (from around 1,000 in 2014 to over 19,000 in the year to last September). There are statistics. A solution is badly needed. More money for the police maybe. Or – possibly – an immunity for police officers who run over people or damage property while chasing mopeds in their squad cars (you can see why this would help keep us all safe).

Problem. Reaction. Solution. We know it well. But check it out. Look at the source. A press release of nine months ago from the Mayor of London’s office, that simply says “in the last year there were more than 19,385 moped enabled crimes in London – an average of 53 a day – including thefts and robberies.”

Ok. Well, “moped enabled crime” is a pretty vague definition. What’s included? Getting away on a moped after robbing someone? Attacking someone with a moped? Stealing a moped? Acccidentally running over someone on a moped while drunk? The question seems to be begged – isn’t “moped enabled crime” just crime with incidental moped quite a lot of the time?

And what about those vague statistics? Who compiled them? Under what direction? With what agenda? Where did they get their facts? And where did that source get the info from?

The press release doesn’t develop or explain and the Guardian, of course, didn’t ask. We just get the headline. Which of course has the effect of endorsing “moped enabled crime” as a piece of commonly understood reality ever after. Where in this echo chamber of chinese whispers is the actual, hard, cold truth? Have you ever seen anything you thought of terming a “moped enabled crime”? I haven’t. I don’t know anyone who has. If, as is entirely possible from my current POV, no one in 7 billion of us have ever seen or conceptualised such a thing or been victim to such a thing, how would this disparate but actual reality ever be asserted in the face of the apparent, but illusory consensus “truth” created simply by putting that term in a newspaper?

And to what extent will defining it and publicising it be involved in actually creating it? Even if the claim of “increasing moped enabled crime” is a deliberate/accidental lie at the time of utterance, will it become true simply by being uttered?

And will we ever know the difference?

Have to say at this point – This isn’t an article about moped-related crime. I don’t own a moped and can claim no experience of ,or expertise in, anything moped-related, criminal or not. It may indeed be a crucial aspect of the current underworld, and there may be places in London where the sound of a 50cc two-stroke in the distance brings cold fear into a thousand hearts. But that’s not what this article is about. So, I hope we don’t get umpteen comments telling us it’s ABSOLUTELY A MAJOR PROBLEM and Catte should be flayed for making light of INNOCENT VICTIMS of moped-based HATE.

The point is, we human beings, as collectors and disseminators of “reality” will never know if it’s true or not. None of us. Despite the most simplistic kinds of “presstitute” memes, the journos who wrote the piece don’t know any more than we do how real it is. The Mayor’s office doesn’t know. Even the compilers of statistics don’t know, unless they were on the streets personally documenting every case of moped criminality in the greater London area in the past two years.

It’s less that we are being intentionally deceived and more that the system itself has lost its grasp on what is real, and doesn’t much care. Real is now nothing more or less than what someone says it is. The right someone in the right place at the right time. Maybe in pursuit of an agenda. Maybe just because it’s easier or cheaper. Maybe because they really think it’s true. It doesn’t matter. No one ends up knowing the difference.

The point is our ancient concept of consensus reality isn’t working any more, and probably hasn’t been for longer than we are comfortable contemplating. Can we even tell the moment it began to diverge from veridical reality, let alone see how far its path has now diverged? All we know is our histories are assemblies of anecdote taken on trust. Few to none of us were there when the events allegedly happened. If we go back further than ninety years none of us were even alive to hear about them third or fourth hand. Everything beyond our own first awareness is an assembly of communal trust.An act of faith in our own human narrative.

Our culture is still basically the neolithic one of collective understanding, but lost in cognitive trauma. Collective experience has moulded us to be what we are. We owe it everything. Without it we are nothing. Yet collective experience is blatantly not telling us the truth any more. Guy Fawkes was likely a patsy set up by Robert Cecil. The Gulf of Tonkin was a lie. The “gas attack” at Douma didn’t happen. Babchenko wasn’t dead.

There are NO berries where we are being told to find them. We need to find the courage to evolve to the point we can finally admit this and move on to a different form of understanding in which “consensus” is interrogated as a matter of course.


88 Comments

  1. Frankly Speaking says

    No disrespect intended, but there’s way too much overthinking in this article and many of the replies. It’s a very simple situation really. Evolution may gave something to do with it, but is the right place for a paper on human psychology, so now down to the crux of the matter:

    a) Society and politics and the media in our NATO and 5 Eye countries has / is being deliberately financialised and corporatised.

    b) This machine has decided to go to economic and probably physical war with Russia, the country with the largest natural and varied assets in the world.

    c) Public opinion has to be controlled then softened up in order to “legitimise” it.

    d) all the propaganda organs are whipped into shape and are blaring out the same message. Deviation is not allowed.

    e) Two Minutes Hate occurs across the media every day with the face of Emmanuel Goldstein replaced by Vladimir Putin.

    f) Whenever a western politician considers an entente cordiale with Putin, they are subject to the daily Two Minutes Hate too.

    g) Remember, we have always been at war with Russia.

    We are the Winstons. Watch your back.




    5



    0
  2. rtj1211 says

    Trusting others continues until by doing so you cross whatever line causes your brain to shout ‘help,’

    I had a financially secure childhood and school was years of sitting in classrooms learning from books.

    I learned the hard way aged 23 what advice from seniors gave me. It was then that trust was replaced by skepticism. It took me going down to 10 stone 7 in weight, cheeks collapsed inward and a realisation that schools, teachers and parents had played me as a statistic to make me what I still am today, an irascible skeptic who could not care if you are the US President, you could still be a liar until proven trustworthy. I learned that most get on by not rocking the boat, not by always doing the right thing, always taking the tough decisions.

    People generally trust if they are not educated to compare words with actions. Every product ad says how wonderful the product is. Only using it yourself will let you know the truth of such claims. I learned this lesson when my CEO told me my first job arriving in a Swiss ski resort was confirming every telephone and fax number of all the hotels in town. She had had relations with the hotels for a decade or more, but it was an annual ritual. Checking key information was correct. I was to do it at each Hotel reception, not at the tourist office.

    People in Russia have told me that they laugh at Western media coverage of Russia as it is so pathetic, so inaccurate, so distorting. They know more about their country than we do, so I trust ordinary Russians more than Tory MPs, Paul Dacre or US media claptrap. I also assume that Russians are like every other nationality I have lived with: they are human, they care about family and children, they seek security, comfort and company and they do not wish to go to war except when survival is at stake. I have found no evidence that Russians are uniquely different….shock horror they like sport, culture and the arts, good food, a good party. They like going to the seaside for a warm summer holiday. Dear me, how revolutionary of them! Shock horror, Russian women like flirting with men, lots of them want to get married and become a mother, preferably marrying someone their parents approve of. Threat to Western Civilisation, that!

    So Westen powers have to invent the bogeyman syndrome, that it is just some evil power crazy mad(wo)man who is unrepresentative of Russians. Unfortunately, Russia now has democratic elections overseen by international inspectors, so anyone who looks can find that either the elections were fair, or the inspectors agreed to only inspect where no rigging was taking place or they were completely useless at their jobs.

    All this means the PTB need control of the Net as spreading truth virally demolishes their power-based house of cards. So now we are seeing the net being corporatised, just another oligarch-controlled marketing channel. Soon socialised net infrastructure will need to emerge and people need to know upfront that the PTB will try and buy it off them. They need the never sell attitude from the start.




    11



    0
    • wardropper says

      But who inspects the inspectors…? Fixing an election is no more difficult than finding a way of selecting like-minded people to be your inspectors, or – even better – getting a voting machine to inspect the other voting machines…




      2



      0
  3. rtj1211 says

    One eternal truth about blackberry picking is that the best brambles are only the best for a few years before ecological evolution changes the game. They emerge when the time is ripe and die back again later on.




    1



    0
  4. stevehayes13 says

    This article displays an epistemological pessimism so radical as to deny the very possibility of objective knowledge. This is not just obviously wrong, but politically (and economically, socially, culturally, morally and intellectually) dangerous. Whilst it may be difficult to find out what actually happened, it is not impossible. If it were, science would not be possible, history would be nothing but fiction and myth, and law courts would be mere lotteries.




    3



    5
    • Catte says

      Nowhere do I deny it’s possible to know what is objectively true. I simply point out we currently DON’T, and that acknowledging this fact is becoming essential.




      13



      0
      • There’s lots of stuff we may not know but there’s an awful we can work out by use of logic and reason. It drives me to distraction the way people, many of whom are much more knowledgeable than I am, are reticent about expressing a firm opinion on something because they believe that there isn’t enough evidence to justify it when there is, in fact, more than sufficient. I believe it’s often logic and reason that can provide information to us more than data per se.

        With regard to our ancestors I remember reading a book on natural pharmacy where the author stated that people must have intuitively been drawn to particular herbs and other plants for their healing properties – that the amount known simply couldn’t have been worked out by trial and error. That might be something we’ve lost from ancient times too, being in tune with our native understanding.




        6



        0
        • I don’t use the same terms as I feel living the true of our convictions is not an opinion but qualities of life drawn in all honesty to stand in, live from and be the experience of. That does not mean it is a fixed belief – because by living from trust and honesty we open awareness to what was not recognized before and grow.
          There are many facets to why we inhibit, distrust or deny our own knowing and instead give way to the rules set under past learning to escape the feared outcomes that the past taught us to expect from breaking the rules.

          I put it to the reader – do you know your existence with certainty? Not silly mind games that gloss over in search of witty diversion or pompous pronouncement in obfuscation of the lack of substance. But can you – will you – open to know your existence and simply abide it for a short while. Perhaps the mind diverts attention again and agains but regardless the existence of thought does not interfere with the knowing of existence – whatever that may be said to be – or left unsaid in being.

          Presence is not ambivalent – but definite. It all here and to live this is to notice what appreciates in its flow of being and what jars and tends to block. Knowing does not mean that you can find any way to communicate it to another – it means you have what you need to serve what you need it for now. While I write with a definite perspective on intuitive knowing I also embrace the use of logic and reason. They are a blending – but much of the intuitive we assign to justifications after the reception, because we mostly do not trust it – and so we do not grow trust in it.

          I feel the ‘danger’ of knowing is when we presume it applies or should be applied to change or persuade others – because initially the first thing we tend to do is seek to ‘tell others’ before we have truly let it abide in us. This is the short circuit of the head and thus a world of disconnected heads out of touch with heart-knowing and taking on the role of control because they are not cued in by heart’s prompting, support and guidance – its all manual from hereon in! And getting it wrong bring loss of face. Others jump in to feed off it to make their face seem more real – in a heartless world.

          Nothing true is really lost so much as covered over. So noticing the coverings is the opportunity for them to fall away – whereas struggling with the coverings is always a reinforcement of entanglement in struggle, division and self-doubt calling for reinforcement. When enough people get stuck at the same place they call it reality. That was someone else said that – but it has merit in a consideration on consensus reality.

          There has to be a general or broad consensus of agreement at the basic levels to be able to meet, interact and share in a world. But if you investigated to note the divergences you would see there are many worlds being lived at once and there are overlaps, correspondences and interference patterns. You can put all of this down to belief and interpretation of any kind of subjective filter – but can you know The World without a mind-filter of definitions beliefs and agreements?
          So the resonant match of such beliefs and definitions is the generation of that ‘field’ of perception and response or experience. There are archetypes at the template level and subtler qualities that are only sensed by subtler attunement that in-form the structure of every instant of our experience regardless our awareness of this or not.
          When triggered into fight flight reaction – all else is subordinated to the physical response. Becoming locked in a loop of fear by design or as a result of an unwatched mind – becomes the dissociated (past looping) metal imaging of a physically framed experience. I don’t have to in any way deny the physical to expand to reintegrate to the More of All That Is – but the habit adaptation within the fear-loop feels threat of nothingness in such expansion or worse a fear of condemnation (penalty) for ‘rejecting and denying the heart or wholeness of being. So the very movement of healing triggers the fear loop as defence of the ‘known’ against such fear projected onto the ‘unknown’. But in truth, when we abide in an unknown – we extend and receive communication and relationship that embodies or grows a recognition and appreciation. Home comes FROM us or if you prefer the quality of the experience we are desiring comes through us. Disconnected heads have no confidence in what they cannot see, feel or account for and control. And so they will not open to the ‘un knowing’ through which new life arises but persist the past at any cost to ‘survive’.




          2



          0
      • Knowing about is defacto subjective. Seeking to eradicate all traces of vitalism, psychism’ or spirit is to effectively initiate the transhuman AI/robot agenda. The conviction of the ‘elites’ tends to align in the manipulation of human units as an energy system – that is their ‘objective’ as the perfection of control to full spectrum dominance.
        But knowing about is a set of definitions and associations that may or may not serve purpose – the key word being purpose. If ‘command and control’ can use ideas to extend its agenda then they are made ‘true’ or real – and once a huge corporate investment follows along they become structurally reinforced as ‘too big to fail’.
        But knowing is not at the verbal mental level of thinking about or associating and identifying with – it is the very nature of your being – or perhaps the being of you , because it is not yours to coerce into supporting your wishes so much as all there is where you are.
        Be still and know – is not a self inflated intellect – but simply transparency and openness to truth – self honesty, trust and undefendedness within being – which requires harmlessness.

        The idea of objective truth rises from the recognition and release of subjective bias. However as I see it – this trues us within ourself to see and be and meet a more integrated world-experience – which paradoxically becomes more conscious of dissonances that rise to a clearer awareness. But ignorance is never bliss but in hindsight. But we cannot un-know what we have opened.

        I do not Know an object world – but I know life in recognition. And object continuity follows soon after face recognition in learning the focus in the physical experience. The key word I see is purpose. Unified purpose is one mind or focus – but a split mind seeks itself at cost of the whole. All true movements are of the first and subverted by the second.

        Incoherence is not a lack of all singing to the same hymn sheet or dancing to the same tune – but a lack of joy.
        I see a world or a new perception of the world is given to the release of the attempt to lord over it and thus become subject to our own measure.
        I don’t see this as an objective world over and against a sense of subjection, but as an extension of worthiness that is the nature of a recognition or knowing of being. Not being as a think in a bodybag – but an edgeless embrace of all that it is – right where you are.

        Knowing cannot be learned or taught but only uncovered by living from it or by noticing what you are NOT and choosing not to identify in reacting as if it is true of you. Not knowing seems safe in a world made from the wish to know something else. But such ‘safety’ is the willingness to sacrifice to a tyrannous god so as to hold your life in an split consciousness – for we hide in the world and we hide ourself from the world. What else is such a ‘world’ but fearful? But is that true of the world ‘out there’ – or is that the result of the meanings that we give it?

        If that seems mad – consider that the world of human experience is learned or internalized over many years of conditioning and adaptation in the growing of a ‘self’.




        2



        0
    • Big B says

      stevehayes13: my friend, have you just woken from a coma from the early days of the post-Enlightenment humanist project? For better and worse, the world has moved on since then. Logical certainty and pure objectivity are now the unholy relics of a Judeo-Christian Absolutist and essentialist structure and value system that lies at the root cause of humanities subjugation and eternalised moral pubescence. We live in a subjectivised phenomenological world of perceiver and perceived (Dasein; Being and being; Lifeworld); where the vainglorious attempts of intellectuals to banish metaphysics have essentialised metaphysics within the very structure of thought, speech, and language. No thought can escape its structure: as it becomes self-reflexive. We cannot escape our thoughts: as we become self-reflective (insularised). Welcome to the postmodern, post-truth world of dictatorial relativism,

      Here, you will find that science is NOT possible: it has become the recursion into confusionism and the apodictic confirmation of confusionism.

      Here, you will also find that history IS fiction and myth: a narrative, ideological, and social constructivism that may or may not refer to spatio-temporal events that either did or did not occur. Like the wave/particle duality: you get to decide which version of the story you want – depending on your POV: and thus align personal subjective ideology with received trans-subjective ideology.

      Here, you will also find that the dispensation of Justice IS via a lottery: of class-relations (maintained around post-production) and a geographical, ethnographical and sexual (gender) accidentalism of birth. There’s one rule for them with status: and a burgeoning amount of mass surveillance, alienable rights that engender subjection to conformism, stigmatising and normalising social conventions and customs, and the rule of ever more totalising and micro-managing Law for us. It is a violently enforced moral pluralism dependent on elitism, status, and worth to the dominant cultural code.

      Deontologically, and ontologically: the more we try and uncover the ersatz-Absolute ‘Laws of Nature’ through the pursuit of science, philosophy, and psychology, the more they elude us. The more rules, conventions, customs, and laws we have: the more Meaning, Justice, and Morality escapes us. So we make more and more rules until we find the fundamental and right ones. In the process, we banish conscience and responsibility completely: and we become infantile wards of the ontological Scientism of the State.

      This has to do with the very nature and essentialised Absolutism and metaphysics of our semiotic codes and text. Any non-metaphysical object that we rationalise and conceptualise (ontologise) and bring within the self-referential semiotic structure becomes metaphysical. We have not yet found a way out of this recursive recursion into the recursion. But we are still looking: within the objectivity recursion.

      Do not blame me for this state of affairs: it has been posited on the very surety of the objectivity of which you speak. The semiotic construction ‘objective’; and its subservient secondary supplementation sounds so much less of a subjection to authoritative theocentrism, the metaphysical, and the Absolute than ‘God’ – whom we declared prematurely ‘dead’ about the time you went into a coma. I can assure you, ‘He’ or ‘She’ is very much alive, and textually coded into our closed semiotic system as a diffuse Dasein, or as it has now been rationalised to, a “pre-reflective self-awareness”.

      A “pre-reflective self-awareness”: that sounds like a pre-ontological ontology? Is that not a self-reflexiive and tautological hermeneutic loop, I hear you say? “Wow, that’s fucked up”: and I would be forced to agree. But that is what ‘objectivity’ has become.

      Please do not confuse that a mere inversion and recursion from the Relative back to the Absolute (from subjectivity back to objectivity) will change our perception. It will not. Objectivity paradoxically creates its nebular binary, Subjectivity – and vice-versa. The emergent ontological duality is how we got here. Both are equally right and valid. Both are equally wrong and invalid. We need to go within and beyond: to an ‘alterity’ or ‘negation of the negation’, a new synthesis that neither confirms or denies anything.

      This is what the Sages and Saints of every religion (small ‘r’ denotes not organised hierarchically; so that the gnosis does not become the dogma) have been saying for two-and-a-half millennia …since some bloke called Siddharta Shakyamuni sat beneath a Bodhi tree, and became the Buddha. Before semiotics: every Saint and Buddha was and is a semiotician. The Word is not within or without of the word: but is its transcendence and immanence. There is a way out: we are just objectively looking in both the right and wrong place!

      [Please do not be offended, my tongue is firmly in my cheek as I write.]




      2



      0
      • stevehayes13 says

        Big B, your tongue may be firmly in your cheek, but your “text” reads exactly like the nonsense produced by the pseudo-intellectual postmodernists, whose epistemology denies the very possibility of epistemology.




        1



        0
        • Big B says

          That is exactly what I was parodying: but not just the postmodernists …the whole Western canon of thought is confusional. I recently re-read Husserl: he does not even know what his own Hyle is. And I am not he first person to notice this: his own student, Merleau Ponty, tried to correct his mistakes. The question is: how did Kant, Nietsche, Heidegger, Husserl, Sartre, Russell get it so wrong? The ontology of reality and human nature that is?

          I do think that Barthes, Derrida, and Baudrillard have a lot of merit: and Sausurre/Pierce/Levi Strauss et al were on the right tracks with Structuralism/Semiotics/Post-Structuralism. But that broke down in the interpretation, as Derrida more or less said it would. Now we have the micro-politics of identity, third wave feminism, etc and our understanding of ourselves is at an impasse. A recursion to Absolute Enlightenment Project values is a return to where we came from. The likes of the rise of Jordan Peterson, Stephen Hicks, etc show there is a need philosophy cannot fill?

          My own school of thought is Yogacaran epistemics: which has many parallels with deconstruction/structuralism/semiotics/phenomenology/nominalism etc but with one clear advantage. It can go beyond the Word (Logos; logocentrism) to the actual experience that the Word is an ontological barrier to. The difference is that Yogacara/Mahayana is not a philosophy or anti-philosophy, but a praxis of liberation. And that involves the practice of Yoga/meditation (which is etymologically what Yogacara means).

          So forgive me: I did not intend to have fun at your expense. Philosophers actually write like that: which is maybe why they are lovers of Sophistry? After all, who does it benefit to keep us confused? Which is what the French intellectuals, but especially Derrida, were trying to say? Only, maybe it got lost in translation?

          Apologies once again.




          2



          0
          • stevehayes13 says

            The sophists have been much maligned: first by Plato and by classical scholars and philosophers ever since.




            2



            0
        • @candide .. LMSO , i could even hear the intonation in that comment: you made me laff’ n’ laff’ so much, I just had to let you know how much I love yer’ sense of humour: in difficult heavy times all over the planet , and after much heavy conversation,
          Great humour always saves the day .. 😉
          tears streaming down,
          What a hoot,
          I thank you 🙂

          Bless you
          balky




          0



          0
      • Oh well that’s that then Mulga. Whose up for cannibalism as the ‘new fad diet’?

        Come on, you can say more than a mere cynical throwaway line.
        Of course justice is often corrupt – but there is more to law than you are letting on or else why would the technocracy push these secretly drafted ‘trade’ deals to bind nations under law of contract?

        Giving all the focus to the disease serves contagion.




        2



        0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          The Common Law is invented by judges. They say one thing in a lower court, the opposite in a higher court. What the highest courts determine today, a new court in ten or twenty years will utterly refute and overturn. Judges are carefully selected for their ideological reliability, which is well known among their peers. They nearly all come from a narrow, privileged, stratum, went to the same schools and universities, live in the same elite enclaves and hold the same opinions. The law in the Anglosphere is a lottery- a rigged lottery.




          5



          0
          • Is there law in life or a rigged lottery?
            Underneath our perception is the measuring stick of judgement.
            As you judge so are you judged is a statement of a just law.
            But in a world made by judgement, the evasion of responsibility is hidden in fig leaf thinking that thinks to have escaped or outsourced its debts to be paid in pain and death by others.
            The development, shape-shifting, evolution of a lies is always an allow of love and hate in the world where the many love to hate and find vindication for their self evasion in vengeance upon the pharmakoi.
            It isn’t that you don’t witness a truth – but that you assign it as The truth – and scapegoat it to the Anglosphere. The corruption of power hollows out and works through any host and works its destruction after propagating itself to new forms.
            True disillusion would be freedom – but what is generally meant is just another form of illusion by which to hate life.
            Whatever the beliefs and judgements of the world, you can always take your case to a Higher Court.
            But while you convict yourself in others, the personal grievance blocks the awareness of the underlying errors and their correction.
            In US formerly USA – an FBI whistleblower who vetted prospective judges seeking higher office became aware over a period of years the those with the most ‘dirt’ on them were the most promoted. It is all about having control over anyone in positions of influence. Control is the god of ‘power’ yet it is power rooted in fear and distrust. yet even in such a world, pathways are lived that find what is needed when it is needed not by such ‘power’ so much as being in the right place at the right time. There is a bigger picture than painted by power given to fear and distrust – if you can find enough trust in your life to open it.




            2



            0
      • N.B. M.B. Mulga bro. fair & great comment that should be qualified, if you’ll permit me ..

        “Law courts are mere lotteries…” unless you attend WITHOUT a Lawyer, but with an official fully Cognisant independent Legally Certified Translator and demand an immediate copy of all the recordings of the proceedings: from both the MICROPHONES and the INVALUABLE work of the Court Recorder , sitting furtively typing away in the corner ..

        (best ALL courts be videoed imho ! With a copy also for the defendant if they feel that tampering within and by the Legal establishment is likely .. )

        ONLY then is the JUDGE paying MAXIMUM attention to detail and the letter of the Law, with a qualified witness for the defendant that counts … >>

        The most important person in courts today is not the Judge it is the court recorder and it is only with microphones that we can cover everybody’s butt , fairly & equitably, because it has become blatantly & abundantly clear to me that MOST JUDGES can be corrupted or compromised in some form or another and even at the highest level of any national sovereign court proceedings !

        What to do ? Record them live .. no more secrets, not even for secret services & military intelligence services .. The very concept ‘Scares the fuck’ out of most people and their tiny minds and pathetic lies, but hey , do I care if they have skeletons in their cupboard and cannot confront themselves morally , principally, equitably & ethically and look themselves in the mirror at night ??

        Nope , I say >>

        Open source all intelligence & engineering, including all science conducted to date >>

        ‘ Save Our Planet & Our Soul ‘

        Sick world , innit’ ! ?
        Binary innit’ ? !
        🙂
        Greetings brother,
        Balky 😉




        4



        0
  5. Jen says

    As with most Guardian Opinion articles, the article on moped-enabled crime isn’t clear on what it’s actually all about. I presume it’s actually a plea for more money to go into policing.

    But I suspect though that most Fraudian articles are deliberately written to confuse readers into thinking they are about one thing when they are really about another, so as to get more approving clicks.




    4



    1
  6. Fair dinkum says

    What is true is important, but it’s not the Truth.
    What is true may put ones mind at ease, but it won’t make one happy.
    Truth, in the full sense of the word, gives Love and equanimity.
    Everything else is entertainment for our busy, busy minds.
    ‘Headless’ via the heart: http://www.headless.org/english-welcome.htm
    Your mind will find a hundred excuses, but not ONE logical reason, to dismiss it.




    1



    0
    • I think you have a point. It’s shameful but I do find an entertainment factor in looking at the bullshit we’re fed and trying to sort it out … and having a chortle over it too just like the people feeding it to us which also feels shameful.

      This morning as I was getting ready for work, a random YouTube video started playing – William Rodriguez, the big hero Twin Tower janitor of 9/11 who rescued “hundreds and hundreds” was speaking at some function. I’d vaguely heard he was a “disinfo agent” but I don’t like the way everyone accuses each other of being that – I believe that in so many cases we just have different opinions – so I didn’t pay much attention. However, it hit me as I half-watched the video, he was obviously employed by the power elite. He was the hero (they always have one in these false flags), he was “the last man to leave the towers” and he even told the truth of experiencing explosions. The guy performed a few useful functions, including:

      — I believe that the number killed was significantly smaller than 3,000 for a number of reasons (see http://occamsrazorterrorevents.weebly.com/why-they-kept-the-number-small-and-inflated-it.html) so good old William helped push the idea there were so many dead people.

      — he told the truth about the explosions and the power elite justify their hoaxing of us with obvious signs either with things that don’t add up, obvious fakery, etc, or, in some cases, the actual truth.




      4



      0
      • rilme says

        What we saw on TV was two planes crash into two buildings.
        And the buildings didn’t fall down. They didn’t topple. The tops didn’t fall off.
        Then one building exploded into dust and fell straight down. It looked strange. Is that what big buildings do?
        Then the second building exploded into dust and fell straight down. It looked very strange. Unbelievable.




        4



        0
        • Then building 7 “fell down” within its own footprint.
          2 planes cannot cause 3 perfectly controlled demolitions.
          The BBC reported building 7’s fall 23 minutes before it happened.
          How’s that for swift news service?
          John Doran.




          2



          0
          • Mark Gobell says

            GHW Bush, WTC-1993 and 9/11 : ( and a possible attack on Christendom ? )

            3119 is the 444 th Prime Number P444

            *

            GHW Bush DCIA on 30 January 1976

            Setting the scene and to get the WTC blueprints : WTC-1993 on 26 February 1993

            The planned denoument : 9/11 on 11 September 2001

            *

            GHW Bush DCIA on 30 January 1976 to WTC-1993

            = 3119 + 3119 days

            = P444 + P444 days

            *

            WTC-1993 on 26 February 1993 to 9/11 on 11 September 2001

            = 3119 days

            = P444 days

            *

            GHW Bush DCIA on 30 January 1976 to 9/11 on 11 September 2001

            = 3119 + 3119 + 3119 days

            = P444 + P444 + P444 days

            *

            President GHW Bush Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Cessation of the Persian Gulf Conflict on March 6, 1991

            http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19364

            “The time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict.”

            *

            March 6, 1991 to 9/11 on 11 September 2001

            = 666 + 666 + 666 days

            *

            See : 3119 day sequence from GHW Bush DCI CIA on 30 January 1976

            https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062656639

            *

            Some say that 11 September 0003 is a possible candidate for the birth of Jesus Christ :

            to 9/11 on 11 September 2001

            = 666 + 666 + 666 years

            See : Jesus Christ and 9/11

            https://forum.davidicke.com/showthread.php?p=1062601962#post1062601962

            MG




            0



            0
            • Mark Gobell says

              Correction :

              March 6, 1991 to 9/11 on 11 September 2001

              = 666 + 666 + 666 days

              11 September 2001 is incorrect and should have read :

              *

              President GHW Bush Address Before a Joint Session of the Congress on the Cessation of the Persian Gulf Conflict on March 6, 1991

              http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=19364

              “The time has come to put an end to Arab-Israeli conflict.”

              March 6, 1991 to the Jihad on 23 August 1996

              = 666 + 666 + 666 days

              https://www.timeanddate.com/date/durationresult.html?d1=6&m1=3&y1=1991&d2=23&m2=8&y2=1996&ti=on

              *

              The 1st Fatwa : “Osama bin Laden’s” reported Declaration of Jihad on 23 August 1996

              https://1997-2001.state.gov/regions/sa/bin_laden_charges.html

              August 23, 1996 — Bin Laden declares a holy war against U.S. forces. He signs and issues a Declaration of jihad from Afghanistan entitled, “Message from Osama bin Laden to his Muslim Brothers in the Whole World and Especially in the Arabian Peninsula: Declaration of Jihad Against the Americans Occupying the Land of the Two Holy Mosques; Expel the Heretics from the Arabian Peninsula.”

              *

              Iraq invaded Iran in September 1980 and they were at war until the 8 August 1988 UN Ceasefire.

              Three days later, “Al-Qaeda” is reported to have “formed” on 11 August 1988

              The problem : Iraq’s Saddam Hussein was given the green light by US Ambassador, April Glaspie to go into Kuwait, which he did on 2 August 1990.

              The reaction : Kuwait & Saudi asked for help

              The solution : GHW Bush landed the first 300,000 US troops on 7 August 1990, Operation Desert Shield, US boots on holy ground, the narrative’s casus belli for the alleged Jihad …

              Iraq Gulf Slaughter I : Operation Desert Storm in January 1991 evicted Iraq from Kuwait, it’s troops slaughtered on the highway of death in February 1991. Ceasefire. Sanctions. Oil for Food. Weapons inspections.

              Into the void left in the wake of the engineered demise of the USSR. They did not respond.

              Repeat March 2003 : Iraq Gulf Slaughter II

              The reported “OBL Declaration of Jihad on 23 August 1996” and the subsequent reported 2nd Fatwa “to kill Americnas and Jews” on 23 February 1998 are, unsurprisingly, among the key roots for the “Al Qaeda / War of Terror” branded events.

              “OBL” decided to Declare Holy War on the infidels, with sublime kabbalistic precision :

              666 + 666 + 666 days

              after Poppy’s plea for peace between the Arabs and the Jews …

              MG




              1



              0
        • Mark Gobell says

          rilme : “What we saw on TV was two planes crash into two buildings.”

          Well not quite, nobody saw the alleged “first hit” live, apart from GW Bush it seems …

          The first “blob”, allegedly Flight 11, crashing into WTC1 the North Tower, was, luckily, filmed by the Naudet brothers as part of their “coincidental filming of the Firehouse on Duane St …”

          NAUDETS = DUANE ST

          Geddit now ?

          ( As in the “Manchester Arena event” and it’s alleged perp : Salman Abedi = A Bad Lies Man )

          The alleged “seond hit”, allegedly Flight 175 crashing into WTC2 the South Tower has been shown to be TV fakery.

          The alleged Shankesville “crash site”, allegedly UA93 being overcome with the “Let’s Roll” Mark Bingham nonsense, is nothing of the sort and has been proven to be fake.

          As for AA77 at the Pentagon, well, nuff said really…

          No planes were used whatsoever.

          What we saw was a not quite perfect synchrionised TV show, nothing more.

          MG




          1



          0
          • Mark Gobell says

            Correction : * … the “Let’s Roll” Todd Beamer nonsense.

            Mark Bingham was the chap who was reported to have said :

            “Hi Mom This is Mark Bingham …”

            During a reported ( impossible ) cell phone call from UA93, erm, to his own mother …

            MG




            1



            0
  7. Willem says

    In the affluent society of John Kenneth Galbraith is a chapter on conventional wisdom, a concept that relates with Catte’s article, See also https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conventional_wisdom

    Parts
    ‘Because social phenomena (e.g. mh17/Skripals) are so forbidding, or at least so seem, and because they yield few hard tests of what exists and what not (thanks to the MSM), they afford the individual a luxury not given by physical phenomena. Within a considerable range, he is permitted to believe what he pleases. He may hold whatever view of this world he finds most agreeable or otherwise to his taste.

    In this competition, while a strategic advantage lies in what exists, all tactical advantage is with the acceptable (where PR comes in: to make BS or untruth to acceptable truth)

    To a very large extent we associate truth with convenience (it is more convenient to think that the Russians poisoned the Skripals than to think that the the British did it) with what most closely accords with self-interest (who in England says that the Skripals were poisoned by the British, does himself less good than the person who says that the Russians did it). We also find highly acceptable what contributes most to self-esteem (we are good, they are bad)…

    The very vigor of minor debate makes it possible to exclude [the dissident] as irrelevant… (Plug in the dissident media)

    The enemy of conventional wisdom is not ideas but the march of events… (So be silent about events or say that the truth is ‘fake’)

    The man of conventional wisdom is not an object of pity. … He is come to good terms with life. He can think of himself with justice as socially elect, for society in fact accords him the applause which his ideas are so arranged to evoke (now I see a mass of journalists from the mainstream passing by). Secure in this applause, he is well armed against the annoyance of dissent (why tell the truth if untruth is doing so many good things for you). His bargain is to Exchange a strong and lofty position in the present for a weak one in the future… He risks being devastated by hostile events (alt media has that weapon in theory). But by then he may be dead (e.g. Brzezinski)




    9



    0
    • “To a very large extent we associate truth with convenience (it is more convenient to think that the Russians poisoned the Skripals than to think that the the British did it) ” … or that no one did.




      8



      0
  8. “We’re an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you’re studying that reality – judiciously, as you will – we’ll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that’s how things will sort out. We’re history’s actors . . . and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do.” — Neocon Karl Rove.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/karl-roves-prophecy-were-an-empire-now-and-when-we-act-we-create-our-own-reality/5572533




    20



    0
    • Mark Gobell says

      Karl Rove tries on Plato for size …

      So, we should take Rove’s advice should we not ?

      Study what they do ?

      I am curious as to the interpretations of the “we are an empire now” statement.

      To whom was the “we” referring ?

      Note : This cryptic “reality based community” piece was delivered on 17 October 2004.

      The same day that the Iraq psyop entity, “Abu Musab al-Zarqawi”, was reported to have “pledged allegiance” to another psyop entity, “Osama bin Laden’s” Al Qaeda …

      al-Zarqawi’s reported gangs were the forerunners to ISIL / IS/ ISI / ISIS …

      MG




      4



      0
      • Mulga Mumblebrain says

        I believe ‘al-Zaqawi’ was mentioned by Colon Bowell, during his UNSC lie-fest, as an ‘al-Qaeda’ operative who had been in Iraq, for treatment for his amputated leg, if I recall correctly. Yet, when he re-emerged as a propaganda actor, he had, newt-like, grown the leg back.




        1



        0
        • Mark Gobell says

          The reason for including the “al-Zarqawi narrative node” in the above post was simply to illustrate that 17 October 2004 was a special date in the kabbalistic calendar.

          This “conjunction of events” is another important aspect of narrative analysis.

          When multiple “events” occur on a single day, or more usually over the course of up to 6 usually consecutive days, then it becomes very obvious that there must be some kabbalistic significance for those dates.

          Note : 6 days is the maximum number of result days that date arithmetic produces in the most “extreme” circumstances, ie: large date components always including months.

          The reason for asking the question :

          “I am curious as to the interpretations of the “we are an empire now” statement.

          To whom was the “we” referring ?”

          Was to provoke thought & discussion.

          When I first encountered Ron Suskind’s “reality based community” piece, I naturally assumed that “we are an empire” related to America.

          However, that interpretation struck me as odd though, since America has been an empire long before 2004.

          So, who else could “we are an empire now” relate to ?

          Any thoughts ?

          MG




          1



          0
          • reinertorheit says

            [[ Note : 6 days is the maximum number of result days that date arithmetic produces in the most “extreme” circumstances, ie: large date components always including months.]]

            Leading to one of your ‘666’ results as usual?

            Don’t forget to include 20th April 1889. will you?




            0



            1
            • I work with strings of numbers every day. I write them down. Type them out. Key them in. They are entirely random chains of numerals. And it never ceases to amaze me how my brain keeps seeing patterns in that randomness. Hence I am immediately sceptical of numerological inferences being drawn as above. Perhaps I have a certain bias being born on June 6th 66.




              2



              0
              • Mark Gobell says

                Numerology or date arithmetic ?

                Since a couple of posters have used the term “numerology” and because I have no clue as to what they might mean by “numerology”, would anyone be able to help with a definition please ?

                Wikipedia has this :

                Numerology

                Numerology is any belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events.[2] It is also the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas. It is often associated with the paranormal, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.[3]

                *

                When you check your bank statement, do you think, “Oh no, not more numerology” ?

                When you check your change, do you sigh : “Oh no, not more numerology” ?

                When you add 4 days onto Monday and land on Friday, do you say to yourself :”Oh no, not more numerology” ?

                When your project manager tells you that your sub-task needs to completed by the end of week 31, do you complain : “Oh no, not more numerology” ?

                Adding Weeks, Months & days ( WMD ) to a date is called date arithmetic.

                You know like 1 + 1 = 2.

                I was always taught to call that maths, or arithmetic and when it is done with dates it is called date arithmetic.

                I’ve never heard anyone refer to such sums as numerology, apart from folk on the internet.

                Which is an exceptionally peculiar phenomenon …

                So the use of the term “numerology” is a tad perplexing to me …

                Is it this bit which qualifies for the “numerology” characterisation ?

                “belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events”

                Because there is certainly not any of “the study of the numerical value of the letters in words, names and ideas.” going on in my work whatsoever.

                Is there any evidence of anyone claiming a : “belief in the divine or mystical relationship between a number and one or more coinciding events” ?

                I certainly do not “believe” anything, I do not even use the term, let alone harbour belief in anything “devine or mystical” in an arithmetical relationship between events.

                Do folk consider the nnn days until their next holiday as “a divine or mystical relationship” ?

                If so, then perhaps that explains the use of the term “numerology”, because, otherwise, imo, nothing else that is obvious so far does.

                Of course, everyone is free to call anytjhing whatever they like.

                However, the work i present uses simple date arithmetic.

                That is why I refer to it as date arithmetic .

                There is no “numerology”, whatever that may mean, involved in the arithmetic forming a relationship between events, whatsoever.

                Being sceptical can be a healthy approach when confronted with new information.

                I am repeatedly surprised though at the number of folk who think they have something to contribute on a subject they know nothing about.

                Can anyone help with this ?

                Is it a psychological thing I’m missing ?

                If I was genuniely interested and knew nothing, I would ask questions, try to find out more, discuss, etc.

                Maybe then I might form some kind of opinion.

                At some point, after I knew a lot more about the subject, I might be tempted in certain circumstances to offer that opinion, or if asked.

                Perhaps someone could help with my understanding of this ?

                I struggle to imagine why I would be tempted to offer “opinion” on any subject of which I knew nothing.

                MG




                0



                1
                • Numerology can also be used to denote personality types as in the Enneagram or spiritual states, as shown by Kabbalah.




                  0



                  0
                  • Mark Gobell says

                    From my exposure to “numerology”, I would imagine that “numerology” can be used to produce anything one says it does …

                    All of which is irrelevant to this duscussion, which should be about date arithmetic.

                    An apple is placed on the table.

                    The guests have a discusion about an orange …

                    MG




                    0



                    0
                  • What something is being used for is the revealing of what it is.

                    The form of a thing does not in its own meaning rest – but in that which purpose gives it.




                    0



                    0
  9. Joerg says

    First of all: Most people don’t want to know the Truth. Yes, Democracy means, “ruling of the people”, like as if every citizen was King/Queen. But as in the past there always had been lazy Kings, who only cared for hunting, love affairs and fun – and most citizens are of that type. They don’t care about their (political) duties.

    For the rest of us it is quite easy to find “truth”. You only have to apply two principles:
    1) You must not try to realize truth on the “objective” or “positive” way. The example in the article above, finding the bush with those delicious berries in the big, big wood, is a “positive” way. Or a way of “grasping”.
    To find truth you must go the opposite way: The way of eliminating contradictions, the way of “not grasping”, but cutting away the false.

    Socrates is famous for his “Socratic Method” (“maieutics”) – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Socratic_method. In a discussion instead of answering to his opponent something like ‘You are totally wrong’, Socrates lead his opponent to the point where the contradiction of his opponent’s opinion was clear to see – even for the opponent himself.
    Buddha (more or less a contemporary of Socrates) used this method even much more than Socrates. Buddha’s word: “My teaching is in contradiction to nothing” reaches much further than nowadays Buddhist understand.
    Example: Those who call critics of the mainstream propaganda to 911 forget, that the official story is nothing but a “conspiracy theory” (hammered out by George W. Bush). Those fighting this conspiracy theory by George W. Bush with competing theories are “debunkers” – not “conspiracy theorists”!
    Also all these stories pointing to Russia: ‘Skripals’, ‘Russia shot down commercial plane over Ukraine’, ‘Russia murdered Ukrainian journalist Arkady Babchenko’ and so on. Or these permanent stories against Assad being blamed repeatedly for gassing his own people: These are all “conspiracy theories”
    Or think of this “responsibility to protect” (“R2P”). Unlike Assad (Gaddafi, Milosevic) the regime in Kiev r e a l l y bombs und murders its own people! Or Yemen: Why is Saudi Arabia not bombed – until the Saudi “regime” leaves the Yemenites alone? What happened to the “responsibility to protect”?
    Why is the word “regime” used for Russia, Syria, Gaddafi’s Libya, North Korea. and why is it not used for Washington, London, Paris, Berlin, Tel Aviv, Kiev, Riad?

    2.) You must train yourself to r e m e m b e r . You must have as little “Memory Holes” as possible.
    Only a few days ago there was this excellent article “OF FAKE NEWS AND HISTORY SUBORNED (IN WAR AND PEACE)” here on Off-Guardian (https://off-guardian.org/2018/05/29/of-fake-news-and-history-suborned-in-war-and-peace/). That article pointed out, that the meaning of George Orwell’s expression “Memory hole” must be extended to a “memory hole” that exists also in our mind, and we must learn not TO BE MADE to forget (by MSM, government, parties, churches, groups, mighty companies and so on.)
    Example: If someone, who already lied to you, ‘berries are there’, ‘berries are not there’, you must remember this for the next time. Also a big group can lie (think of this h u g e number of journalist of our MSM today – lying at us bald facedly).




    13



    0
    • Mark Gobell says

      Good advice Joerg.

      “2.) You must train yourself to r e m e m b e r . ”

      Or, use a database …

      Then write some code …

      Et voila, all becomes clear …

      MG




      0



      1
    • I see Joerg’s good advice as linked with Vierotchka’s pertinent quote above, or rather as modulated by it. We must indeed remember, but also not be confused by too much data that reconfirms endlessly that which we have already established (e.g. via a nifty database as Mark suggests). I.e., beware the wild-goose chase leading nowhere. For example, the MSM lies, government lies, business lies, etc. These are now givens, the evidence is more than ample and continuously available. For my money, it’s now up to us to establish a new version of ‘reality’ founded on transparency and truth telling. In a different formulation: to be actively engaged in learning how to sustain that vector as we learn to establish it. Journey-not-destination sort of thing.

      Argh, these living dynamic-balance systems thingies are hard to define without sounding overly convoluted. I hope my meaning is at least part-way clear!




      2



      0
      • Joerg says

        @Toby (and @Mark Gobell)
        it’s now up to us to establish a new version of ‘reality’ founded on transparency and truth telling“.
        Dear Toby, You can’t “establish a new version of ‘reality’ founded on transparency and truth telling“. That’s simply impossible – and it was that throughout human history.

        To go deeper in what I said: My point is, that the only way to improve this world is the INSIDE WAY.
        To understand the INSIDE WAY let’s look at the OUTSIDE WAY: It may be a year ago that I saw a video clip of an muslim immigrant in Italy, who went into a Catholic church and destroyed statues of Virgin Mary and other ‘holy’ persons (and his doing was caught by a surveillance camera). This guy wanted to do something good: Fight the ‘wrong way’ of the heathers and lead people to Allah/heaven – instead of to hell.
        Up to only 500 years ago Christians also were on this OUTSIDE WAY (massive burning at the stake, torture et al.). But this leads only to bad not to good.

        To understand the INSIDE WAY You must realize that what You see before Your eyes is an INSIDE product. this because the eyes don’t make a picture. Instead a lot of optical cells of the retina only give “on”/off” signals into the big nerve at the back of every eyeball. And the two nerves than send these information into the optical department in the back of Your brain. And there the picture is produced. It is exclusively an INSIDE product! And if You observe something (may be a soccer game, where someone shoots the ball into the goal) Your eyes look exclusively into the inside of your optical brain to follow up the changes of Your own optical production.
        The one who experiences life lives only within a 6-senses production. Yes, 6, not 5 senses. Unlike European philosophers Indian philosophers knew this for thousands of years. Also you mother language knows this: “Be sensible!” appeals only to Your thinking/reason – not to the other 5 senses.
        And this 6-senses-world is only scenic – not made of “things”, not of “material”! After Buddha it was the great Scotch/British philosopher David Hume who came close to this irrefutable fact.

        Also the man who hold the “sermons on the Mount” ( I doubt that it was “Jesus”) gave good advice, when he said. “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven
        Yes, the Christian never understood this – .but what did he mean? He meant this: If you go to the movies what is served to You by optic and acoustic is may be only 10 % of what You experience. There is now love (‘oh, this brave and sweet female leading actor’) or hate (‘if I meet this evil rat outside the cinema I will knock him down baldly’) or suspense. YOU make this all by yourself!
        If You read a novel (of love or suspense or a porno) there are only letters. These letters are possibly only may be 3 % of what is really there. So 97 % of what Your experience are made only by Your own “spirit” (sermons on the Mount).

        What to do?
        No, you shouldn’t “establish a new version of ‘reality’ founded on transparency and truth telling” or you shouldn’t – as Mark Gobell suggests – “Or, use a database …Then write some code …“.
        Instead You should take the opposite way – to Your INSIDE. Buddha told the way. And though his (Pali)sermons have been vastly falsified (because already shortly after Buddha’s Nirvana the then (and nowadays) Buddhist understood Buddha as little as Christians the “sermons on the Mount”, You still can find true advice from Buddha that has not been eliminated yet.
        And the advice is: Go to your inside. For example: be always aware of Your facial expression – and rest there . At first – especially if you work – you will loose this concentration. So do this whenever you don’t have to work or go after fun.
        By this – step by step – you can get control over this “Karma-machine” that plagues this world. No “database” needed!




        1



        0
        • I agree and disagree. My short suggestion, wholly lacking in any detail, is meant in total support of the inner way that you describe. However, I disagree that karma is to be avoided. I see the nature of reality differently to the traditional Buddhist position on this one point. We, as consciousness, are always evolving. There is no unchanging end point devoid of all challenge.




          0



          0
        • BigB says

          Joerg: I did not see this comment before …I could not agree more: our experience of life is ‘representation only’ …vijnapti matra.

          A note about the Pali Canon. The sermons were not written down for two or three hundred years, if I remember correctly: but the Abhidhamma Pittaka was the categorisation and exegesis by later scholar-monks. This was the foundation for Asanga and Vasubandhu to expound Yogacara. The sub-tradition of Vasubandhu is characterised by his Twenty Verses, Thirty Verses, and Three Natures and represents a complete epistemic. So, as you say, there were those who understood what the Buddha taught, and the Dharma was not eliminated. Yogacara is where to look for liberation.

          A note about karma: anything beyond the Six Consciousnesses (Six Vijnanas) is, in itself, a karmic formation. It is the karmic realms that are ‘unchanging’: as they always have Self as a referent and operant. The incremental ‘changes’ in Self – from youth to old age, for instance – are also karmic formations. Thus, there is no change, or evolution within karma (only a re-ordering of signs). Karma is the co-mutual dialectic formation of the Seventh consciousness – the Mano-vijnana – which is conceptual (linguistic; semiotic) in nature (parakalpita – “imaginary”) …as such, it is self-reflexive and recursive. The bija seeds of karma are stored in the Eighth consciousness – the alaya-vijnana. The conditioning loop between the Seventh and Eighth consciousnesses produces the (projected) karmic realm. There is no way out of this loop: other than not to make it (by resting within the Six Vijnanas). Then, the alaya-vijnana withers away (and with it the manos-vijnana) leaving ‘Pure Perception’. This is the essence of Vasubandhu’s Thirty Verses.




          0



          0
    • Finally, the camel’s back has cracked. Stalwart Guardian staffers have found their work ‘does not meet the Community Standards policed by the Hasbara Kommentariat’, and their submissions have actually been bounced by the odious Likud shill Viner.




      10



      0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      That’s just the Zionist control. Freedland, Cohen, or another of the Elect would have seen that cartoon, immediately recognised it as ‘antisemitism’, and demanded its removal.




      8



      1
      • reinertorheit says

        This cartoon was removed by the newspaper’s editor because it didn’t abide by our community standards. Any other sympathy for Palestinians may also be deleted.. Watch your step, Bell – the Matzo Mafia don’t tolerate dissent in the ranks. For more information about our Community Standards, take a walk down Stamford Hill Broadway on a Saturday moning.




        8



        0
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          We all know which ‘community’ they are speaking of when they refer to their ‘Community Standards’.




          6



          0
  10. Harry Stotle says

    ‘Real is now nothing more or less than what someone says it is’ – most people can probably live with reasonable approximations of reality?

    The bigger problem (as I see it) is not such much the nature of absolute reality rather the fact certain realities are manufactured, or at least heavily manipulated for geopolitical reasons across outlets that control the lions share of information gateways.




    10



    0
    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

      When the omnicidal Right find it easy to deny science, rationality and Enlightenment values in their campaigns to deny all the ecological catastrophes, starting with anthropogenic climate destabilisation, then you know that the jig is up, in the Anglosphere at least. But when supposed ‘Leftists’ also join the denialist Crusade to obliterate our species, on the spurious grounds that the elites are faking 200 years of science, a near universal consensus among scientists working in the field, and the facts of reality, then a certain farcical edge to our self-destruction is added.




      1



      3
      • For you, MM, I recommend a smashing little book: Human Caused Global Warming, The Biggest Deception In History, by climatologist & historian Dr. Tim Ball.

        John Doran.




        1



        1
        • Mulga Mumblebrain says

          I recommend a return to high school, and re-acquaintance with basic science. How do you propose that ALL the Academies of Science and scientific societies on Earth and 99% of actively publishing climate scientists, get it wrong, or lie about the science, but your ‘scientist’ Tim Ball, gets it right? Use your brain.




          1



          2
          • High school!
            You need to break out of that one if you are going to lift up your eyes to see.
            I suggest – forget the claims to be a ‘consensus science’ (sic) and just sniff it for the signs of a psyop – or guilt and fear driven manipulation. Oh this is different. This is about real guilt and real fear based on real facts? So anyone who doesn’t conform is out of a real job and as a ‘denialist’ will really pay the penalty.

            They are in the business of inventing or distorting reality to manipulate outcomes to suit their agendas and you are their target.
            How to power a new tyranny – fund the environmental movement and grow a good crop – and then subvert its broad spectrum of concerns to demonize on butter – no sorry cholesterol – what’s up with my typing – carbon dioxide and of course farts.

            Truth about sugar was published in ‘pure white and deadly’ back in the 70’s – the author – a scientist of distinction, was ‘hung out to dry’ – stonewalled, smeared – you know made an example of like Andy Wakefield. For 40 years of so ‘consensus science and journalism (sic) towed to ‘party line’, looked to ther way, invested in the lies made of crap (fraudulent) science to divert from refined sugar to butter and cholesterol. Corrupt or fraudulent science is effectively operating slow genocide via sickness, ecocide by toxin

            I felt that science – (as it has allowed itself to become) would be broken as a result of taking this bait or complying with its stick – but since then I have become aware that it is like every other institutional endeavour and has a long history.
            The winners are not the true discoverers but those who serve or can be weaponised and marketized by the power-seeking and profiteering of the day. All in a good cause of course.




            3



            0
            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              I read Yudkin’s ‘Pure White and Deadly’ when it was first published. That science was suppressed by the sugar industry in the USA, in EXACTLY the same manner in which anthropogenic climate destabilisation science has been suppressed and denied by the fossil fuel industry, the richest by far on Earth, the Right and a weird ‘Leftist’ tendency who have been conned into believing that the powers that be are faking 200 years of science, one of the greatest science consensuses ever reached, and MOUNTAINS of evidence from reality. Pray tell, how do ‘they’ fake the melting of montane glaciers around the world, the rapid decline of Arctic summer sea ice, the movement towards to poles of the line of permafrost, the rapid changes in animal behaviour and plant budding and fruiting times etc (I could go on ALL day)?You are correct, in my opinion, regarding Wakefield and Yudkin, but have things 180 degrees ase-up when it comes to climate science. Just follow the money trail.




              3



              2
              • Thanks for a civil reply.
                I don’t buy man made global warming climate change as suppressed science but see an insidious attack on humanity via the manipulation of fear and guilt under deceit of victimism from which moral justification to hate is then channelled by the handlers. Once one has awakened within oneself to the nature of victimism, one can discern the deceit regardless any truths into which it is woven.
                Not that there is not injustice or even insanity to address, but that hate masking as power wreaks misery and destruction while claiming to protect.

                While I have no sense that CO2 is anything but another demonisation of nature to divert from toxic ecocide and of course genocide I see the way a psyop is set up, carried out and executed – including the use of the corporate tobacco history as a cover story.
                There is no way to out think the deceiver because the nature of mind-control is that of being already running a false or phished identity – deeply defended as self.

                The environmental movement is likewise captured and subverted to operate as a living tool of the very evils it thinks to defeat. You can see it under the banner of ‘War On’ whatever.
                The hidden hand of negatively or fearfully defined self masks its hate within moral assertions that others mask compliance or conformity to in self preservation.
                The best of religion is denied while the worst simply uses the forms of whatever is held sacred.

                The framing under evil makes the threatened seem sacred – but in this sense sacred is special and set apart as an idol to which life is sacrificed to ‘save’ the world.

                Symbols can point to the divine in all that is – but there is no personal power, private profit, patent control or fantasy juice from using others to get off on – to be gotten from the truth – and so symbols are used to obscure and usurp – a phishing ruse.

                The state of our world is both a co-creation of rage and attack and a generation of reaction in a like rage and attack. The un-mindful or conditioned reaction to exposure to this sickness – or evil – is to seek to project it away and escape by any means to hand and at any cost so as to save your ‘self’. The intensity of the fear overwhelms the ability to maintain consciousness. Thus is the outsourcing or denial of self-responsibility by which to mask in denial and pretence defended with the very rage that is jack-in-the-boxed under masks of ‘reasonable’ constraints that yet leaks and breaks out in all kinds of conditions into our life, our family and relationships and world.

                I realise I am not answering you on the ‘how in all reason could so many be wrong, deceived or in some collusion’ at the level you expressed. I have every respect for you freedom to choose where to look to find truth and no desire to force you to fit my own current acceptance. In fact I would lose my mind to deceit if I were to believe I should or could. Coercion can force compliance and conformity to forms of observance but it also generates hatred because it is subjection of the truth of the freedom of Will. Under the usurping and enslavement of the Will to a ‘holy crusade’ for its chosen people.

                Becoming aware of and standing consciously in the choices we are making is part of inviting the same self-honesty in others – and the freedom to MOVE and create again instead of freeze under tyrannous thinking. Moral bullies are not representative of integrity – but of the substitution of the mimicry of it as a self-inflated or self protective act.

                Integrity is in and of our true being – align in the wholeness of being and clean your own room before waging war on the shifting evils of a world of lies.




                2



                0
          • http://www.petitionproject.org/seitz_letter.php
            Over 30,000 american scientists protested the fake news 97% consensus. These included over 9,000 PhDs. For the phont 97% meme to hold true there would have to be over 1,000,000 scientists holding to the ludicrous proposition that man’s CO2, Carbon Dioxide, plant food, drives our climate.
            Man’s contribution to the CO2 in our atmosphere is less than 4%. 57% is given off by warming tropical oceans, daytimes.
            Animals alone give off 25 times more CO2 than man.
            If you want a book with more science in it try geology Prof. Ian Plimer’s Heaven and Earth, Global Warming: The Missing Science
            Over 2,000 ref’s to peer-reviewed papers etc.
            In the meantime you just keep on sucking up & regurgitating that fake news.




            1



            0
            • rilme says

              Was that a straw-man argument?
              We increased the population of one species of rather large mammal to 1 bn in 1896.
              To 3 bn in 1960. To 7 bn in 2015.
              That species enslaves at least 3,000,000,000 cattle, which, as you said, emit a lot of CO2 and methane.

              We dug up billions of tons of coal and burnt it.
              We dug up billions of tons of oil and burnt it.
              We cut millions of hectares of forest and burnt it.
              Can you see why there are “warming tropical oceans”?

              Go and stand in a car park on a sunny day. Stay there until you figure it out.
              You’re getting warmer.




              0



              1
              • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                I haven’t seen Ian Plimer quoted, save as a joke, for many years. The denialists are nothing if not fanatically ineducable. If the fate of humanity was not in the balance, you’d be amused.




                0



                2
                • You deride Geology Prof. Ian Plimer who has produced a work of considerable scholarship, 500 pages, 2,000 + references to peer-reviewed papers, etc, while you produce nothing but wild claims of coming doom.

                  You claim the Oregon Petition has been debunked, but it can’t be debunked: it was an honest petition organised by INVITATION ONLY.

                  You claim “Settled science for 200 years” as your constant mantra, which is utter nonsense: only for God is the science settled, the rest of us poor mortals are still trying to figure why our planet drops into & out of Ice Ages.

                  One thing is certain: it sure as shooting ain’t man-made CO2.

                  You claim huge percentages of consensus which don’t exist outside of your “reality” or the fake news MSM. I’ve read of labs full of sceptical scientists, scores of them, all privately knowing that the man-made-CO2-warming meme is utmost foolishness, but none willing to utter one word publicly, for fear of losing their jobs. James Cook University has just sacked Peter Ridd ( 100+ papers to his name) in a disgraceful attack on free speech. JCU scared to lose the vast grants they get for supporting the man-made-climate-change drivel?
                  Lennart Bengtsson, 79, was so hounded by warmist fanatics he feared for his health & resigned from the worthy Global Warming Policy Foundation.

                  Fanatics pushing an agenda & claiming settled science?
                  Does the Roman Catholic Church & Galileo not spring to mind?

                  John Doran




                  1



                  0
              • There has been no statistically significant warming globally for 20 years, since 1998, which was an El Nino year.
                El Nino events are warmings of the Pacific ocean through undersea tectonic or volcanic activity, nothing to do with man’s CO2.
                There is a 40,000 mile chain of volcanoes along the mid-ocean ridges constantly erupting molten lava, fresh water (H2O) Carbon Dioxide (CO2) & much else.

                The ludicrous notion of controlling the climate by regulating man’s output of plant food CO2 is so farcical that it does not survive even the most cursory study.

                The Global Warming scare followed immediately upon the heels of the 1970s global cooling scare. It was started summer 1988 when NASA’s James Hansen & Sen. Tim Wirth made a presentation to Congress on the traditionally warmest day of the year. They were rewarded with a heatwave & the heat of many cameras, but just to be sure they had also sabotaged Congress’ air conditioning.

                It was always farce, theater, a con job, right from the start.
                It’s dying because Trump sensibly would not sign the Paris farce & because China & India are building coal-fired power plants at a gallop. They are not fooled by the CO2 con, even if they pay lip service to the political nonsense.

                John Doran.

                http://www.notrickszone.com

                Right hand column: 100 + papers Sun Drives Climate
                & 129 Climate Scandals.
                Enjoy.




                1



                0
              • As you’re standing in that car park, notice how instantly the temperature drops when a cloud passes between you & the Sun.

                The Sun produces the heat, not CO2, & the clouds reflect the Sun’s heat back to space.

                Clouds are water, H2O, not CO2.

                A 1% difference in cloud cover could be responsible for all the approx 0.7 Deg C increase in temperature observed during the 20th century.
                In the last 2 years we have lost ~0.56 Deg C as the Earth cools,

                The weakening of the Sun’s magnetic field is shown by the lack of Sunspots during the present Sun Cycle 24. This will allow through more cosmic rays, upon which more clouds will form, reflecting away more of the Sun’s heat. A cooling effect.
                It is very likely we are entering a cool period akin to the ~ 500 year Little Ice Age, during which the river Thames froze & many paintings were done of the “Frost Fairs” held on it.

                The Little Ice Age was a cold time of poor crops, famines, wars & plague.

                Before the LIA was the Medieval Warm Period, a period of ~400 years of good crops & prosperity, ~900 to 1300 AD.
                The Domesday book 1086 showed grapes growing up to Hadrian’s wall. I will grant you that the Jocks getting outside some good vino might cause a few slight local problems, but it hardly counts as a possible global catastrophe, as the fake news MSM would try to sell us.

                We have had the previous Roman & Minoan Warm periods, with the Bronze Age Cooling & the Dark Ages Cooling, before the Medieval Warm Period.

                All natural climate variations within the present interglacial warm period, going back approx (~) 15,000 years.

                Naff all to do with man-made CO2.

                Previous Warm Periods were: Bolling, Allerod, Holocene Warming a,
                Holocene Warming b,
                Cool Periods between were: Older Dryas, Younger Dryas, Egyptian Cooling, Akkadian Cooling.

                Before ~15,000 years ago we were in a glacial time. These, for the last ~ million years have shown cycles of ~ 10,000 years warm & 90,000 years glacial.

                Before that the warm/glacial cycles were ~ 41,000 years,

                Why the change? Well it wasn’t me driving my Shogun, or man-made CO2. “The climate’s always changing, for about 4.5 Billion years.”
                As Buzz Aldrin correctly remarked.

                The historical info is from the History Chapter of Prof. Ian Plimer’s great book: Heaven and Earth Global Warming: The Missing Science.
                Other Chapters cover: The Sun, Earth, Ice, Water, Air, & more.
                Highly recommended.
                John Doran.




                1



                0
            • Mulga Mumblebrain says

              With the lives of all humanity at very grave risk from a greenhouse apocalypse of a type that we know was the cause of a number of Mass Extinctions in the past, like the End Permian ‘Great Dying’ (or are you going to deny that, too?)this sort of ludicrous, fossil fuel industry created, garbage, is more than pernicious. The ‘Oregon Petition’, of which you speak, has been so completely discredited that it takes some sort of real ideological or psychological fanaticism to STILL peddle it.
              Against this fake ‘petition’ and all the other fossil-fuel industry created disinformation, you have EVERY ie ALL, without ANY exception, national Academy of Science on Earth, EVERY learned scientific society and 99% or so of recently published climate scientists, plus the evidence from reality. Are you going to deny the over one degree Celsius increase in global average temperatures in the last 100 years, and all the evidence of melting glaciers, sea ice etc, as well? Of course you are.




              0



              2
              • What you are actually saying is a false flagged guilt by association with terror. (Greenhouse apocalypse – oh how useful is a deep psychic charge like a the persistent focus in fear of apocalypse – how might that be hacked and used as a proxy weapon? But apocalypse is an unveiling – so that’s my gift here to the willingness to see).

                False support for a false flag by calling up extinction events from the past – and insinuating that because it is verified, any criticism of your asserted meme is by definition ‘denial’. Your house of straw is blown away.

                ‘Deniers’ used pejoratively draws from association with Holocaust ‘deniers’ (who may actually include critics holding alternate views as a result of revisiting and uncovering more information about the official narrative, and sources ignored or distorted by that narrative – which has been set above history because of what is is being used for – regardless whether whether what happened was as stated, and sanctified above all others who were killed, starved terrorised and abused.

                So by drawing on the fear of such an accusation – (which can drag anyone down from their career and at least terrorise by intimidation) – you identify the nature of this ‘righteous power’ you claim over all else – adopting the same tactics of smearing with ‘thought crime’ and penalty of social exclusion such as to (sic) actually deny free speech under the shadow of Facist thuggery operating without check under guise of ‘justified rage’ – as a calculated but mob growing hatred that must be shown to avoid not being a target.

                Power drawn from the use of victimism where catastrophic destruction generated by programmed computer models is used to support of a convenient lie that sets up an evil agenda by accusation of ‘evil agenda’ in others. You said it first, loudest and with power-backing from the top down under claim of being suppressed and victimised by the energy cartels who of all principalities of this world are not going to be caught with their pants down but simply shift to profit from the changes while leaving a token sacrifice. Money moves wherever it makes money. And bid money pays big money to predict and control risk. They are moves ahead of anyone’s attempt to call them to account. Follow the money indeed!

                The top down engineering of this psyop is not merely profiteering to survive but a consolidation of power over the general corporate sector now that their use in the destruction of nations is effectively a done deal. Call it a trade deal if you want. After all, when you are told which side of the line to invest and plan for, from multiple vectors at once – you are a rare corporation that doesn’t at least tick the boxes and show up if it is a ‘consensus you cant refuse’

                It doesn’t matter what the hack is – it is targeted to run you as a living tool under illusion of freedom or ‘saving the world’.

                I read today that the Aztecs in expectation of another age-ending terror (there have been a few in the Mythic record), took to themselves the role of delaying its onset by claiming the divine right to wage war so as to keep their flow of ripped out living hearts to offer in sacrifice of appeasing the gods. On one recorded occasion 80,000 killed at one ceremonial event. Such a holy war ‘saved the world’ until the Europeans brought the end of their ‘specialness’ by asserting the holy will of god in plunder and genocide.

                Before saving the world – go and clean up your room. Make sure there are no victims being abused for your personal identity reinforcement. Align in your OWN integrity to then meet others in it rather than sell out for a shaped charge of a deceit that has your name on it – that is it is fitted to your profile.

                When you see ‘moral’ being used to coerce – be sure to activate a healthy alarmism of not being phished and framed by reaction. Or you will only interpret through the framing of the identity you took as if your own.

                Everything is Alive – this is not meaningful to dead thinking but it is the meaning that dispels conflicted fear. I don’t make your choice – but I stand by your freedom to not only make your choice and live your consequences, but to learn the choices that are already attracting and aligning your experience. I stand in such integrity as self-honesty uncovers and do not need to justify or apologize for accepting life as I recognize and resonate true and puting behind me what has no belonging – without demonizing it. I also rest in a healthy denial of doublethink or any other hack of mind-blinding – regardless where it comes from or how it is packaged.
                Thanks – but no thanks!
                Lets address the actual agenda to poison and lay waste to our Living Planet and embody a living purpose as its health – instead of getting off on a heroic sense of personal significance from guilt fear and destruction. Choose for life if you love life and choose for death if you worship the fear of death as your guide and protector. Only one of them is real – so even the poorest in Spirit will eventually awake to their inherence.




                2



                0
                • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                  Yes, but the science is still the science. Add greenhouse gases to the atmosphere and you add retained energy to the Earth system, and thereby destabilise the climate. When you do that as rapidly as we have done in the last 200 years, the destabilisation will, and that is as certain as science comes, destroy the ecological systems, or so severely derange them, that agricultural production will crash, floods unprecedented in human history will devastate, mega-fires will rage, and animal and plant species will go extinct. That will amount to a Holocaust of Life on Earth unseen since the comet impact that finished off the dinosaurs. None of that is, scientifically, in any way controversial, and we see the process beginning already, and science is the best method we have to predict future events in the Earth system.




                  0



                  2
                  • ‘Well a man sees what he wants to see and disregards the rest’.

                    ‘Science is science’ – did you write May’s “brexit is brexit” PR?
                    When is science not science? When it is pay for play.
                    Have you any idea of the nature of self interest in creating the Earth System?
                    Like Ghandi and western civilisation, I think science would be a very good idea.
                    Where do trojans hide to break in and lay waste?
                    Where you don’t look because you have an identity that automatically reacts as if it is not only fact but true foundation. Science is the willingness to challenge such a narrative.




                    2



                    0
                    • Mulga Mumblebrain says

                      Sorry, binra, but that, in my opinion, is just verbiage designed, for some reason, to obfuscate the fact that anthropogenic climate destabilisation science is as ‘settled’ as science comes, and concerns the greatest threat, ever, by far, to continued human habitation on Earth. As for ‘pay for play’, that applies the fossil fuel denialist industry created and financed by the greatest monetary power on Earth, the fossil fuel Moloch, not to climate science. By a factor of a couple of degrees of magnitude, at least.




                      0



                      2
                    • You are welcome Mulga but I see the self destruction of the current paradigm – not least on the AGW as ‘engineered consensus’. The good news is that Science needs to be free of being used as an economic and political weapon for corporate and (captured) government agendas. However scientism is a religion or dogmatic provider of identity – as is anything that dresses in ‘authority’ so as to pass off as tested, true and trustworthy. I accept that you don’t see that such pervasive and systemic corruption is the case. I am not trying to change your mind, but I invite you to look at it before you run with what you are told as if it must be true and so it is.




                      1



                      0
                  • http://www.biocab.org/Carbon_Dioxide_Geological_Timescale.html

                    A good essay & graph demonstrating there has NEVER EVER been any correlation, never mind causation, between CO2 & temperatures.

                    In particular you referenced the Permian.

                    This started as a glaciation, then temperatures shot up to tropical levels.
                    CO2 stayed at about 210 parts per million by volume, for millions of years.

                    Temperatures are completely independent of CO2 concentrations.

                    Somewhat embarrassing for those peddling your nonsense.

                    John Doran.




                    1



                    0
              • It’s hard to stop laughing.

                “the lives of all humanity at very grave risk of a greenhouse apocalypse”

                There are three main agendas behind the CO2/warming/climate con:
                Depopulation, De-industrialisation & a Totalitarian World Govt.

                Ted Turner, who pledged $1 Billion to the lie factory UN IPCC is on record as wanting a 95% global population reduction. Our lives are at risk from the 1%s pushing this nonsense.
                http://www.c3headlines.com

                Click on Quotes.
                John Doran.

                Dr Tim Ball makes this clear in his smashing little book.




                0



                0
  11. One important part of education should be learning how to search and possibly find the truth in this political reality. However, teachers themselves provide a space where everything is open to discussion, every thing is questioned, no piece of information is accepted without research.




    1



    0
    • rilme says

      Merciful Heavens, Pooot, my teachers didn’t.
      Can you spell kangaroo court?




      0



      0
  12. Reality-experience is a subjective interpretation of ….. ?
    The development of subjectivity is also the development of modelling or imaged reality.
    The subjective seems to be apart from and defining of a reality outside itself. I suggest this is a psycho physical personification and not actually apart or separate at all.
    Fragmentation is a result of separation trauma, with the persona operating a masking role to mitigate, cope, manage, re-define and operate – if you will – a bubble reality seeking validation and reinforcement externally – as if to overcome a sense of lack and conflict internally.
    Divide and rule out is the way of not knowing who you are or what anything is, by means of persistent shifting conflicts, polarised and seemingly autonomous and yet the victim and victimizer share the same script.
    The idea of private creation is the distortion of the communication of presence to effect a masking presentation and enact the fantasy it is true.
    The use of the term reality can vary greatly.
    The idea of a single objective reality physicalises as experience from the attempt to coerce reality to conform to a fixed image or model. This then traps the mind that wanted its fantasy of power in the reflection-reinforcement of coercive opposition.
    I write from a connected consciousness.
    Appeals to models of mutual agreement in physically defined frameworks contain a sense of disconnected thinking seeking external validation.
    Consensus reality is a misnomer for narrative identity or narrative control. While some ideas are adopted and used by those who shape the way we filter and interpret the world. the underlying reality is a psycho-emotional communication that the persona operates as coded signals over.
    While the idea of evolution is valid as an incremental adaptation to changing conditions. It use as an ‘identity politic’ or power struggle is something else.
    Everything brought into the framework of the underlying fear and distrust that is an underbelly to narrative self justifications and strategies of defence, becomes marketised and weaponised because the underlying purpose is aligned in a lack of presence and a fear of further – or total – loss of self. We call it survival – but it is more of a persistent locked-in sympathetic nervous system, in which all else is sacrificed to defend against threat. That this is fragmented into surface dilutions does not mean rage or terror is gone, so much as mind has strategies for denial, covering over, and diversion.
    Yet the underlying relational reality is not something we cannot open to, find each other in and grow relations of practical benefit in a shared sense of worth – but that is mapped and ruled out by personal, social and cultural identities.
    I see a growing recognition that we are being lied to. I see less of a willingness to look at self-deceit – which is a complex grown on self-in-image – as a symbolic representation of a psychic-emotion and physical posture.

    In vernacular terms our reality has ‘broken’ – but of course it is our reality-construct that is broken, unfit for purpose, no longer serving, costing the Earth, and demanding sacrifice of the living to a death cult dressed to ‘care’.
    In terms of ‘fitting’, our thinking no longer has any leeway to seem to fit or be fit for any but the same old script, and so those who yield their thinking in willingness to truly live rather than cling in fear of losing a life (that never really opens to its joy), will be the willingness to ‘fit in’ with the true need – the actual communication, the honesty and acknowledgement of what lies beneath in the desire to reintegrate rather than separate into ‘reactive identities’.
    We are truly identified in the extension of love – I’ll call it worth – which is to say we are (experiencing) the measure of our giving. What can a miser expect but misery? How to give to those who are making choices that you do not support? Live to their right and freedom to choose as their OWN freedom of discovery.
    There is a sense in which you create your own reality – but a key facet is whether you live , think and act from a sense of lack and disconnected consciousness, or from a sense of extending appreciation, worth, gratitude.
    Fear is contagion to the unwary, but love in its ordinary being, is a universal quality of acceptance.
    reality is thus our function to give and share in, not ours to define predict and control.
    Reality is thus OPEN, un-coercive and yours to accept. Accepting what truly resonates brings you present in joy. Accepting what does not belong to you brings dissonance. We all took on all sorts of things to survive our infancy onward – much of which is baggage – but we don’t want to change – fearing pain or loss, and so a deadness becomes an establishment without vision or connection to inspiration.

    Evolution has outlived its consensual usefulness as a political movement to disestablish a tyrannous establishment under its ‘god’ and usher in the Liberal era. While of course there is a baby in the bathwater, the neo liberal tyranny is actively aligned with thought-crime, and a collectivism that runs under a technocratic sham over a post truth politic, where lies are merely algorithmic adjustments – of – and have you taken your meds?




    0



    0
  13. So _that_ was why, when communities became large enough to need written tablets they included, Thou shalt not Lie about the berries in the bush.




    7



    0
  14. Tom Welsh says

    Very good stuff. A point that very much needs to be made and discussed – explained plainly and simply.

    Just one complaint, though: please don’t use the hideous neologism “societal”. The word is “social”. Otherwise eventually we will get “societetal” amd “societetetal”…




    3



    0
  15. While I agree with the drift of this article there is a lot more that can be said about how it comes about that people do not “interrogate” the consensus and, indeed, why they may not notice that there is any point in doing so.

    I’ve covered some of these in a chapter of a book I wrote which is a critique of economics as a belief system. (In chapter 12 of my book “Credo” whose chapter title is “The attention seeking economy, information and the manufacture of ignorance” (The book can now be downloaded for free at http://www.credoeconomics.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/credo.pdf ) Here are some notes on reasons, taken from Chapter 12, on why people may not get beyond the “consensus trance”.

    Delusions and wishful thinking – errors in which you (and perhaps your group) have an emotional
    investment which are thus, difficult to shift

    Denials – things which are too painful to know so you ignore information that confirms them

    Informational asymmetry – unknowns for some people that are known to others (vested interests
    blocking information flow);

    Costly information – situations where getting to know costs so much so that that partial or inaccurate
    knowing or even ignorance may be chosen instead

    Deception and secrecy – hiding knowns from others and/or fostering errors or delusions (by using
    secrecy jurisdictions and tax havens for example)

    Technical information – information that is difficult for lay people without a specific competence to
    interpret

    Taboos – things/situations that a peer group/the law/ company business culture think you should not try
    to get to know

    Paranoias – hypotheses about the nature of unknowns that impute motives by others that are to be
    feared

    Granfalloons- system of group belief to pursue a purpose that is ultimately futile, even destructive, but
    profitable for members of the coalition pursuing it.

    Choosing definitions that hide and distract from problems – e.g. saying that there are no cases of shale
    fracking causing water contamination – by defining fracking to exclude very common drilling and well
    integrity failures as well as very common surface accidents and spills.

    Attentional manipulation – deliberately directing attention to one process so that victims do not devote
    attention to some other process which remains unseen




    12



    0
    • Granfalloons! There’s a new one. Interesting (just looked it up)

      Your post provides a clear set of examples of negative self interest operating the ‘hidden hand’ of a negative outcome that I expect we can all recognize in ourselves as well as others.
      I’ll look at your book – thanks.




      2



      0
  16. Cecil almost certainly set up Guy Fawkes. Cognitive trauma is a result of TMI. Populism is a result of distrust. Trump is the new saviour. Elizabeth 1st’s maxim was “trust no-one”. The KKK is dead or is it? Germany is back in charge. Has anything changed?




    3



    0
  17. Catte, an excellent article and yet Tubularsock doesn’t even like berries!

    However, all is not lost!

    You have inspired Tubularsock to get a moped and go on a crime spree. It seem to be the “right” thing to do.

    Group mind, group think and “reality” must be why ALL the movies and songs and TV and poems, and books continue to regurgitate the same old stories over and over again.

    Would stay and pontificate more but Tubularsock’s moped awaits.




    10



    0
    • Catte says

      Thanks for making me laugh! Best of luck in your new career. I’ll watch out for your mug shot in the Graun.




      9



      0
    • Tubularsock provokes sleep deprivation after that comment: can’t stop laffin’ & visualising ..
      (Balky tried lying down to sleep by thinking of NASA’s S.T.E.V.E. “the Purple Streaker, Graun speak” but kept getting recurring imagery)

      Doubled up@Tubularsock flailing in the wind , draped & stretched over a purple helmet on Jasper’s Funky Moped , gassing down the road with Strong Thermal Emission Velocity Enhancement systems of dodgy weather manoeuvres, with Tempest force wind in yer’ back, chewing a Carrot & a purple tinged hot gas emission trailing behind, from yer’ tail gating ‘windslip’ overtaking shot, whilst grabbing (via open car window) Luke Harding’s latest perverse attempt at script writing for the Graun , with huge groans of societal displeasure at the youth of today and the realisation that his mobile phone battery was too flat to film yer’ Demon getaway .. 🙂

      And cursing d’Purple “Tubularsock strikes again” , WTF ! ? Who started all d’Crazies, anyways’ ? ?

      Brilliant mate, just brilliant, you go for it

      and please someone have the camera ready .. 😉

      Back to bed , it’s 3:33 , time to pee ..




      0



      0

Leave a comment