Mechanics of Power

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Fri Dec 21, 2012 7:19 am

I wrote most of this a while back for the 'Thinking and Feeling' thread.

Mechanics of Power

Early rulers found it useful to declare themselves as being God. This pretence has never really been given up, even if it’s newer and cleverer iterations passes over the head of modern man and his culture. As the absurdity of a man declaring himself as being God became more apparent, new ploys were needed to program the unconscious layer of our psyches to see ‘divinity’ as being generated outside of and at a distance from the humble citizen.

Perhaps unintentionally, early rulers learned the value of imposing a double bind on their subjects. By making it very painful to create a conscious model that may be at odds with societal and unconscious programming, most people will instead find conscious ways of validating their underlying drivers or unconscious programming. The happy consequence of this for the ruler is that the subjects will generally access their sub-conscious store of knowledge only to buttress their conscious modeling, in preference to tapping this store to challenge or redevelop our unconscious modeling. The double bind forces one to accept absurdities in exchange for belonging to the group. This situation results in fractured beings where the layers of psyche ‘fight’ with each other, rather than supporting and integrating. The flowering of ‘divinity’ is the product of integration of the (three) layers of psyche and is the greatest fear of controllers.

One might see Christianity as a Roman psyop because it did fulfill several key interests of power. (Someone realized that) Wisdom might be controlled and contained by associating it with one special representative, rather than to let it be seen as a natural result of any searching consciousness. So the wise guys were hired to compose a more universal description about our relationship with the divine. Or so they may have thought. The real deals happen in the editing room where the mere addition of the (effective) clause that to be a ‘Christian’ one must accept that ‘Jesus’ is God in the form of an individual historical man. This fable would have ‘divinity’ to be a rare thing indeed, certainly not something to be easily contained by the average person. The wise guys were left to walk the lost highways while the administrators found a fine new tool to keep their charges compliant.

What’s a poor boy to do? If you wanna be ‘good’ ya gotta be ‘Christian’, which happens to require the occasional pillaging or burning of the neighbors over odd pretences. Odd that, but hey it’s part of a larger package. Intellectuals of the day could only speak within a framework that cultivated reference and deference to dogma, and essentially rule by clergy and Papal authority. It was the only game in town for a long long time and modern folk do themselves a disservice by ignoring the pervasiveness and depth of this programming of our unconscious layer of psyche.


Our situation is such that the narratives that drive our psyches are still a totally top down affair. The uber-narrative of a restricted space for the expression of ‘divinity’ (or intellectual acuity, for you secular types) promotes pride, pompousness and a general lack of respect towards ones fellow man.

The endurance of this effective vertical authority distribution system directly correlates to our use and participation with its tools and benefits. Poor, try again. Because our narratives are built on fantasies, even well meaning folk are caught up into a system of institutionalized lying.

But human relations need not always be in terms of the dominant narratives. One does not need to know another’s creed or politics to be kind towards them. Real culture can come from the grass roots if we learn to assert it by cultivating better relations with real people.

The ‘culture’ that Brussels presumes to impose on us seems like a revival of the Roman Empire and a hard reassertion of the vertical authority distribution system. We the people can just shut the fuck up as far as they are concerned.

Thankfully, as the internal contradictions of this coercive agenda unfold, even the average man may have the light bulb turn on where he realizes that most of what he ‘believes’ was pressed onto him by manipulative liars.

(Because there will be no peer reviewed papers on the subject, intellectuals will be the last to recognize the new reality.)



I live with the good fortune of being surrounded by kind people.


While I might not be so kind, whether by habit or nature, I don’t know; still because of an intellectual commitment to finding value in the process of becoming, I tend to embrace my experience. Which of course is a funny feeling during times of great pain. This embrace tends to encourage me to do things that make other people happy. For my work context this means getting a lot of work DONE while maintaining a high level of detail. I do this fairly well because I have ‘systems’ and maintain focus on each task as it presents itself to me. This embrace or respect for experience, if you will, also helps preserve my tools and vehicle. My corn bristle broom is over five years old and still looks almost new at the business end.

For the home and social context it means trying to listen, open and respectfully to the verbal and emotional cues that are attempting to express deeper concerns. Being kind need not be all about altruism. It can be quite self-serving in that kindness is often multiplied in its return. It has certainly served me well. One thing I have found to not mix well with kindness is lying. It is not kind to lie. It is disrespectful, a marker for manipulation and certain to eventually destroy the trust required for any two people to have a healthy relationship. Institutionalize the lie and multiply by several billion, then naturally we get the potential shitstorm that ‘civilization’ seems ready to drop on our doorstep.

People who are kind tend to not use their intellects in the service of coercion and domination. These folk are natural expositors of horizontal authority distribution systems because they respect the input and contributions of others. While these folk may flourish in the outlier regions of our culture, the material rewards seem reserved for those of a domineering, manipulative and aggressive style of mentality. The empire will only end when this style of mentality is no longer endorsed by the pretensions within our thinking.

These pretensions may fade as we realize that ‘divinity’ is the birthright of all people and is more often ‘driven away’ rather than embraced by the ‘special’ people making the effective claim of being proper vehicles for ‘divinity’.

Happy Holidays and best wishes to all
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby crikkett » Fri Dec 21, 2012 12:26 pm

When I decided to consider what people did rather than what they said, I understood that I'm surrounded by holy people. Enough of them are Christian for me to further understand that religion is to holiness what 31 flavors are to ice cream.

Happy Holidays of whatever flavor you choose to enjoy!
crikkett
 
Posts: 2206
Joined: Sun Sep 09, 2007 12:03 pm
Blog: View Blog (5)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 8:54 am

Thanks Crikkett



The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions.
This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.

Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.

We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.

This is included to help illustrate more about active and passive emotions. It from some sharp ex-Christians whose link I lost. I will find it if so requested.

For Spinoza, there are two kinds of emotions: passive emotions and active emotions. Passive emotions are reactions to external circumstances; it’s what simply happens to us when external circumstances cause us to react to it in a certain way. For example, if I see a Lion in front of me, my emotional reaction would be fear. The existence of the Lion in front of me, including my perception of it, causes me to be in the emotional state of fear. This makes me into a passive being. However, on the other hand, an active emotion derives not from external circumstances, but rather it derives from the power of understanding. This power of understanding is our natural capacity, by exercising this natural capacity we exercise the power that gives rise to joy, which empowers us to live well. The difference is that with the active emotions it follows from exercising our natural capacity to understand ourselves and Nature, whereas with passive emotions it follows from external circumstances having power over us.



From the comments for the video below…
RE: "What baboons teach us, is If they're able to, within one generation, transform what are supposed to be textbook social systems sort of engraved in stone, we don't have any excuse when we say there is a certain inevitability in human social systems."
It seems that the impetus for change within social systems is often a consequence of tragedy. Hopefully humans can learn to rely less on such a motivator.

Why hierarchy creates a destructive force within the human psyche (by dr. Robert
Sapolsky)


Last edited by Sounder on Sat Jun 29, 2013 12:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 29, 2013 10:56 am

Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.


Can you provide some concrcete examples?

Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.


Can you identify a few people you consider examples of "cultural godfathers"?

We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.


I don't disagree with this in principle. But in practice I suspect the planet wil be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.

You're an idealist. I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 11:41 am

Thanks for responding BPH.

I will be happy to elaborate in a few days when I am less busy.

I don't think I am an Idealist, but I will review a few things and maybe we can talk about it.

One philosopher guy I spoke to said my thing was about pragmatism.

I don't know
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby compared2what? » Sat Jun 29, 2013 3:23 pm

Sounder » Fri Dec 21, 2012 6:19 am wrote:Our situation is such that the narratives that drive our psyches are still a totally top down affair. The uber-narrative of a restricted space for the expression of ‘divinity’ (or intellectual acuity, for you secular types) promotes pride, pompousness and a general lack of respect towards ones fellow man.


There is just such a profound and essential home truth somewhere in, around, or near that. And maybe it's that, exactly what you say there. But it just feels so imperative to me to know and understand it thoroughly, that I go around and around with myself constantly trying to articulate it in the form that gets the job done best.

....

Not to re-trigger debate, but fwiw, this (from a PM I wrote to jerky in connection with the Campbell thread) is basically an attempt to approach the same thing from another angle. The Campbell part of it isn't, strictly speaking, essential. But it's a very difficult thing to express. And I can't think of a way to do it without using examples. So I'm going to leave it in and hope for the best. Apologies in advance if it's inflammatory, though.

    Honestly, to me zionism and the kind of racial anti-Semitism that Campbell is alleged to have subscribed to are two parts of the same whole, arising at the same time, in the same place, for the same reasons, and in response to the same causes and conditions as one another. (Meaning: In the nineteenth century as part of the world's attempts to come to terms with industrial modernity and its sequellae, basically.)

    They're not precisely equivalent in every regard at the level of detail. But the reason it's important (to me) to acknowledge and delineate the differences is that ultimately they're the same. And originally they're the same. Same mistake, same consequences, IOW.

    And understanding that thoroughly is essential for the purposes of, you know, not doing it again and again and again and again, in one way or another. I'm not sure if that's coherent or comprehensible. But that's how I conceive of it, and it's really, really important to me. A moral imperative, pretty much. Because they're reciprocally reinforcing, on top of everything else.

    So...I don't know. In the event that it was comprehensible and coherent, you can take it for granted that whenever I'm saying something like: Okay, well, zionism did not actually originate from hateful motives, it's not because I'm defending or trying to make it look good. It's because I'm trying to say: You can make this mistake without hate, which applies to Campbell, too, imo. Equally. It's just less easy to illustrate in his case, which is why you have to say it about zionism to put yourself in a position to make the point. (Whatever it is..."That although they don't work out that way, they're both the result of pro-life not pro-death impulses, oddly, contradictorily and counter-intuitively enough. So forgive, forget, don't do it again." Something like that, maybe.)

    And blah, blah, blah, ad infinitum. It's really important to me, though. If there was just one thing I think that I could succeed in conveying to anyone, that might be it. And I have quite a few more immediate and personally consequential complaints.

    Happily, in reality, I'm not limited to expressing just the one!

If it's not clear how that's related to what you're saying (which it is, conceptually, as I see it), just ignore it. I'm not trying to hijack the thread, or turn it into a zio-semito thing. It just seemed like another iteration of very much the same sentiment about uber-narratives and their limitations. So I'm offering it as that.

(Also, I'm not saying this or that thing means nothing/makes no difference/doesn't matter. Or anything of the kind. I'm saying: These things don't mean exactly what they look like they mean. That's all.)

I live with the good fortune of being surrounded by kind people.


May it be ever thus, my Sounder.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Sun Jun 30, 2013 9:24 pm

C2W?, I wonder if you might expand on the nature of this mistake.

I ask to avoid unnecessary exposure of my ignorance and to have a check on whether my thoughts on the matter relate to what you are trying to get across, or instead are merely reflecting my mental obsession of the week.

Thanks
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby compared2what? » Mon Jul 01, 2013 1:11 am

Sounder » Sun Jun 30, 2013 8:24 pm wrote:C2W?, I wonder if you might expand on the nature of this mistake.


I think I just meant the mistake made by both zionists and the racial antisemites who were their contemporaries in thinking themselves....You know. So very justified, right, and onto the solution for the social ills they believed their "-ism"s addressed that they fell too in love with them to leave any room for realities, such as their humanity and that of others. Notably. My point being: That doesn't have to originate out of hatred. (Or even bad intentions, when it's on a somewhat smaller scale.)

...

If I meant something more than that, it's beyond my powers of expression to say what, I guess.

I ask to avoid unnecessary exposure of my ignorance and to have a check on whether my thoughts on the matter relate to what you are trying to get across, or instead are merely reflecting my mental obsession of the week.

Thanks


You're not ignorant. I'm unclear. And maybe wrong, too, it's hard to say in a vacuum. But ask me anything you want, whether you're uncertain of something or simply disagree with me, I'm not precious about it.

I mean, if we disagree, we do. It's not the end of the world. Possibly understanding will be slightly enhanced by it, if so. Or not. But it's fine either way. So make sure you don't call yourself ignorant on that account, please, no matter what, please. I'd hate that.
_____________________

*** Meaning, literally, zionists not Israelis -- ie, pre-1948.
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 10:00 am

Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.


Can you provide some concrete examples?

Of sources that generate passive emotions?
Let’s see, how about religion, rationalism and materialism, really any totalizing belief set that willfully restricts areas of potential inquiry.

Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.


Can you identify a few people you consider examples of "cultural godfathers"?

No need to get personal, but you asked so it seems like Rockefeller, Edward Bernays and James Randi would qualify. In general though, ‘cultural godfathers’ are those that make ‘laws’ to oppress the poor and benefit the rich.

We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.


I don't disagree with this in principle. But in practice I suspect the planet will be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.

It is probably the case that you see the coercive element as being more fundamental to human nature than is kindness or altruism. Whereas I consider that we are ‘hardwired’ for both coercion and altruism, we depend on context (software) to determine which option will tend to dominate.


You're an idealist.

You may be right, or at least I see how you may take me to be that way.

But in my mind I am a formal materialist.

I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.

You probably can admit though that taking humans as being ‘fatally flawed creatures’ would tend to promote resignation.

I share your desire to see things as they are, and I also think we have a boatload of misapprehensions to work through before that happens to any wide degree. It does bother me though that the desire to see things as they are, has so often in the past, produced totalizing ideologies where internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts.
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 02, 2013 2:32 pm

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote:
Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.


Can you provide some concrete examples?

Of sources that generate passive emotions?
Let’s see, how about religion, rationalism and materialism, really any totalizing belief set that willfully restricts areas of potential inquiry.


Those aren't concrete examples, isms usually aren't. But I should have been more explicit. Funny, but I keep reading rationalism as nationalism. But let's use religion as the framework. What constitutes a "programmed passive response trigger" within the context of religion. Let's stick with what is traditionally known as "religion" so as to simplify... ya know, like god stuff. How does that particular programmed passive response trigger restrict areas of potential inquiry and/or "ensure the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential."?

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote:
sounder wrote:Cultural godfathers support generation of passive emotions because that is an efficient marker for ones willingness to submit to and support the current vertical authority distribution system.


Can you identify a few people you consider examples of "cultural godfathers"?

No need to get personal, but you asked so it seems like Rockefeller, Edward Bernays and James Randi would qualify. In general though, ‘cultural godfathers’ are those that make ‘laws’ to oppress the poor and benefit the rich.


Personal? no. Specific? Yes. The term "cultural godfathers" even within the confines of the context of your words could mean a lot of things. What I'm getting is that these are people that are the "programmers" behind the "programmed passive response triggers" and they are the "willful" architects intent on creating a "bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential", thus cognitively enfeebling the masses and "restricting areas of potential inquiry."? (I can't believe Randi qualifies. Is that supposed to be the representative of rationalism?) ...and there's lot's of Rockefellers... how about we focus on Bernays? I think that's your best chance of convincing others. Can you flesh out his part in all of this?

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote:
sounder wrote:We could however alter our conceptual structures in a way that encourages development and practice with expressing active emotions. If we so chose, we could recognize that coercion bankrupts the human spirit. Then we might at least have a chance for finding our way to a horizontal authority distribution system.


I don't disagree with this in principle. But in practice I suspect the planet will be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.

It is probably the case that you see the coercive element as being more fundamental to human nature than is kindness or altruism. Whereas I consider that we are ‘hardwired’ for both coercion and altruism, we depend on context (software) to determine which option will tend to dominate.


I don't think we are hardwired for much of anything at all. Maybe a fear of heights and snakes and how to suckle. Perhaps swimming. (I love the aquatic ape hypothesis). Within the context of the collapse of civilization and all the life sustaining aspects of it we are entirely dependent on our choices will be survival choices. I guess what I am saying is that before it is at all practical to approach the problem from your preferred mode (the inside) there will have to be a lot less of us and "civilization" will need to have already collapsed. And, no. That's not my secret wish.


Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote: You're an idealist.

You may be right, or at least I see how you may take me to be that way.

But in my mind I am a formal materialist.


We all get to call ourselves whatever we like.

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote: I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.

You probably can admit though that taking humans as being ‘fatally flawed creatures’ would tend to promote resignation.


Sure. That's why I felt to need to qualify my statement. I guess it's a matter of emphasis and my mood. Ask me tomorrow and I might say Bollocks to "fatally flawed creatures". But if we're not fatally flawed creatures then we got a lot of splainin' to do or at least maybe more than we would otherwise. Programming? original sin? What effect does the judeo/christian belief that we are all sinners have on culture and on the individual psyches of the adherents to that belief? How far back do the "cultural godfathers" go?

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I share your desire to see things as they are, and I also think we have a boatload of misapprehensions to work through before that happens to any wide degree. It does bother me though that the desire to see things as they are, has so often in the past, produced totalizing ideologies where internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts.


I think that bothers most thinking people. Perhaps the less "programmed" one is the less likely "internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts"? What would be an example of programming that produces a desire for internal consistency and a blindness toward inconvenient facts?
"Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." - Martin Luther King Jr.
User avatar
brainpanhandler
 
Posts: 5113
Joined: Fri Dec 29, 2006 9:38 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby compared2what? » Tue Jul 02, 2013 3:05 pm

brainpanhandler » Tue Jul 02, 2013 1:32 pm wrote:
I don't think we are hardwired for much of anything at all. Maybe a fear of heights and snakes and how to suckle. Perhaps swimming. (I love the aquatic ape hypothesis). Within the context of the collapse of civilization and all the life sustaining aspects of it we are entirely dependent on our choices will be survival choices.


That's what we're hard-wired for, though. Like all living organisms, even microbiological ones.


Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote: You're an idealist.

You may be right, or at least I see how you may take me to be that way.

But in my mind I am a formal materialist.


We all get to call ourselves whatever we like.


I'm an anarchosyndicalist and a fairy princess.

Also, I live in a state of permanent ecstatic bliss and constant communion with those I love in some other-worldy dimension with, as I see it, starry skies and infinite varieties of penny candy for everyone.

(Just in case we all get to call our circumstances whatever we like, too. Probably kind of childish of me, I know. But I'd just be kicking myself if I wasted the opportunity.)

:lovehearts:



Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:
I wrote: I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.

You probably can admit though that taking humans as being ‘fatally flawed creatures’ would tend to promote resignation.


Sure. That's why I felt to need to qualify my statement. I guess it's a matter of emphasis and my mood. Ask me tomorrow and I might say Bollocks to "fatally flawed creatures". But if we're not fatally flawed creatures then we got a lot of splainin' to do or at least maybe more than we would otherwise. Programming? original sin? What effect does the judeo/christian belief that we are all sinners have on culture and on the individual psyches of the adherents to that belief? How far back do the "cultural godfathers" go?


FWIW, due to the qualifications you put on it, I took "fatally" to mean something more or less like "fundamentally" or "inherently," in context.

Sounder » Tue Jul 02, 2013 9:00 am wrote:I share your desire to see things as they are, and I also think we have a boatload of misapprehensions to work through before that happens to any wide degree. It does bother me though that the desire to see things as they are, has so often in the past, produced totalizing ideologies where internal consistency is prized much more highly than are inconvenient facts.


My turn to be confused.

...

It seems to me that the flaws are an inconvenient fact. Because they are. Right? So if you're saying that what bothers you about the desire to admit to them ("see things the way they are") is that it hasn't yet led to a system that succeeds in ameliorating them, that makes sense.

But you seem to be saying: The problem with the desire to see things as they are -- ie, to identify, reject and renounce destructive flaws -- is that it leads to systems that do that.

You can't be, though. So I guess I just don't understand which inconvenient facts you have in mind. Expand?
“If someone comes out of a liquor store with a weapon and 50 dollars in cash I don’t care if a Drone kills him or a policeman kills him.” -- Rand Paul
User avatar
compared2what?
 
Posts: 8383
Joined: Sun Oct 21, 2007 6:31 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Canadian_watcher » Tue Jul 02, 2013 7:23 pm

brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:56 am wrote:
Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
The primary technique used and prime directive of power mongers is to keep the general population driven primarily by passive emotions. [/b]This ensures the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential. Because it is a threat to the integrity of ones personal identity to accept that one is largely driven by programmed passive response triggers, it can be difficult to identify sources that impact ones own belief set.


Can you provide some concrcete examples?


I can.
1. advertising keeps people competing for goods rather than for their own goods and the good of the community.
2. the drug industry in collusion with the medical complex encourages people to consider themselves and their children to be "sick" if they are rebellious, short tempered, disagreeable, angry, easily bored, sad or defiant and then medicates those urges out of them.
3. social networking pretends to encourage individuality while simultaneously punishing it (if your opinions are uncomfortable for others, be prepared to pay for it or keep them quiet.)
4. the beauty and fashion industries are just about as out of control as they could ever be and people feel inferior if they don't spend the money and time to look like everyone else.
5. Debt. debt is a control mechanism that's been sold to the current generation of young people as never before - student loans, massive mortgages, credit cards.

All of the above are control mechanisms that ensure people remain passive - you cannot be a rebel when it comes to the above unless of course you don't want to identify with the 'majority' and you don't need the rewards that come from that identification.

brainpanhandler » Sat Jun 29, 2013 9:56 am wrote:
Sounder » Sat Jun 29, 2013 7:54 am wrote:
... in practice I suspect the planet wil be a hollowed out cinder and we will be on the verge of extinction before that happens on a large enough scale to matter and by then it won't matter except as a foundation for whatever future those survivors might try to build.

You're an idealist. I think the baboons are just more evolved than us in some respects and we are just fatally flawed creatures. That's not resignation or apathy. It's a desire to see things as they are.


I think that those sentiments are the very definition of resignation.

I see things 'as they are' as well - but they aren't how you see them. isn't it weird?
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Wed Jul 03, 2013 8:31 am

BPH wrote...
What constitutes a "programmed passive response trigger”? How does that particular programmed passive response trigger restrict areas of potential inquiry and/or "ensure the bifurcation of the layers of psyche so that they interact in ways that are not up to their potential."?


On rereading the sentence, it seems that the word trigger is extra to that sentence. That phrase referred to the first paragraph and to these next sentences from the second paragraph; Perhaps unintentionally, early rulers learned the value of imposing a double bind on their subjects. By making it very painful to create a conscious model that may be at odds with societal and unconscious programming, most people will instead find conscious ways of validating their underlying drivers or unconscious programming

(Our King has brought great prosperity to our lands, he must be God)

The trigger part only happens when the programmed response is challenged.

To cite a modern specific example, take The Rockefeller Trust spending 50 million dollars to establish the dominance of allopathic medicine. The result is a system where health innovations that do not include pharmaceutical inputs tend to not be supported. Excepting surgery where allopathic medicine does wonderful work. Bottom line common sense though, says that if the ‘empiricists’ were able to compete on a level playing field, both sides and medicine in general would be better off than they are now.


To Canadian Watcher
We do well to aspire to see things as they are, but because of the mediators of perceptions and conceptions, we should never expect to actually see things as they are. Maybe there can be close approximations, but my personal opinion is that we are still far from that point.


C2W? wrote...
It seems to me that the flaws are an inconvenient fact. Because they are. Right? So if you're saying that what bothers you about the desire to admit to them ("see things the way they are") is that it hasn't yet led to a system that succeeds in ameliorating them, that makes sense.

But you seem to be saying: The problem with the desire to see things as they are -- ie, to identify, reject and renounce destructive flaws -- is that it leads to systems that do that.


(Do you mean; leads only to systems with more flaws?)


You can't be, though. So I guess I just don't understand which inconvenient facts you have in mind. Expand?


The first part, -inconvenient facts reveal flaws but because of our limited perspectives we can also build new fictions around the new facts.

second option, I don’t know. Language seems messy out here in the borderlands.

I’m going to leave expanding on 'inconvenient facts' for later. (Halton Arp as a teaser)
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Canadian_watcher » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:23 am

:)
yes, I was being a bit tongue in cheek. I don't really think I am able to see much as it actually is since I'm only 5 foot 6 (if you get me.)
at least, though, I know that. I feel that most if not all of my current opinions and perspectives and projections are transitory. At least they'd better be or it means I've all but shut myself down.
Satire is a sort of glass, wherein beholders do generally discover everybody's face but their own.-- Jonathan Swift

When a true genius appears, you can know him by this sign: that all the dunces are in a confederacy against him. -- Jonathan Swift
User avatar
Canadian_watcher
 
Posts: 3706
Joined: Thu Dec 07, 2006 6:30 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: Mechanics of Power

Postby Sounder » Wed Jul 03, 2013 10:31 am

Thanks CW.

I did realize later that you, of all people, would not consider that you 'actually' see things as they are.
Sounder
 
Posts: 4054
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 8:49 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

Next

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests