Tazmic, thanks for getting to some substance.
Not every What and When is simply a misguided manipulation.
Certainly not, but people are still being played by allowing the what and when to be filtered through one ‘belief’ system or another. Observation shows that most people use their intellect to fit the facts into their belief system. That’s poor usage of the intellects potential. We could use the intellect to refine our beliefs but there is that little issue of ego. It is insecure so it tries to ‘fix’ the category, as in make hard, so then the personality becomes defined by reactivity instead of being a creative expression of essential self.
A manipulator could understand your point perfectly...
Manipulators are unconsciously validated every time a fact is butchered to make it conform to some belief. A certain class of manipulators do understand this quite well (see my sig line), but another class is simply unconsciouslly repulsed from considering the point.
This was picked out as I reviewed other tazmic posts. (I have not been around much, so it was good to review.) Sorry, i did not note the author or thread.
In the 1970s, "a major cooling of the planet" was "widely considered inevitable" because it was "well established" that the Northern Hemisphere's climate "has been getting cooler since about 1950" (New York Times, May 21, 1975). Although some disputed that the "cooling trend" could result in "a return to another ice age" (the Times, Sept. 14, 1975), others anticipated "a full-blown 10,000-year ice age" involving "extensive Northern Hemisphere glaciation" (Science News, March 1, 1975, and Science magazine, Dec. 10, 1976, respectively). The "continued rapid cooling of the Earth" (Global Ecology, 1971) meant that "a new ice age must now stand alongside nuclear war as a likely source of wholesale death and misery" (International Wildlife, July 1975). "The world's climatologists are agreed" that we must "prepare for the next ice age" (Science Digest, February 1973). Because of "ominous signs" that "the Earth's climate seems to be cooling down," meteorologists were "almost unanimous" that "the trend will reduce agricultural productivity for the rest of the century," perhaps triggering catastrophic famines (Newsweek cover story, "The Cooling World," April 28, 1975). Armadillos were fleeing south from Nebraska, heat-seeking snails were retreating from Central European forests, the North Atlantic was "cooling down about as fast as an ocean can cool," glaciers had "begun to advance" and "growing seasons in England and Scandinavia are getting shorter" (Christian Science Monitor, Aug. 27, 1974).
Speaking of experts, in 1980 Paul Ehrlich, a Stanford scientist and environmental Cassandra who predicted calamitous food shortages by 1990, accepted a bet with economist Julian Simon. When Ehrlich predicted the imminent exhaustion of many nonrenewable natural resources, Simon challenged him: Pick a "basket" of any five such commodities, and I will wager that in a decade the price of the basket will decline, indicating decreased scarcity. Ehrlich picked five metals -- chrome, copper, nickel, tin and tungsten -- that he predicted would become more expensive. Not only did the price of the basket decline, the price of all five declined.
An expert Ehrlich consulted in picking the five was John Holdren, who today is President Obama's science adviser. Credentialed intellectuals, too -- actually, especially -- illustrate Montaigne's axiom: "Nothing is so firmly believed as what we least know."
How does memory of events and experience get swamped out by dogmas and communal truths so easily?
But it's the What and the When that let us ascertain the nature of the How and the Why.
I agree and we cannot get around this. But we can use facts to undermine our beliefs as well as to reinforce them. But cultural habituation says we use facts in the second manner. We gain stature, in whatever sub-community we happen to belong to, by controlling the categories better than the average person. Then we use the internally consistent reasoning of that community to create righteous wars so as to impose this better way on another community.
At least it's the clearest way to get a handle on that context
which enslaves, and to understand how it moves in the world.
The what, when and who qualifies one to play well on ‘Who Wants to be a Millionaire’, but if one asks why, there is better chance to be touched by Divine Consciousness.
Then,--- We have a chance to adopt a new style of expression for our individual and collective psyches.
Why don't you add the New Age to your list?
By all means. These folk seem to often display a stunning lack of understanding for the distinction between thoughts and intention.
An analysis of the What and the When does not mean that 'only these things' are being considered. It's certainly the case in the News, where
questions and potential solutions never challenge that dominant framework, but I think a lot of people here are beyond that.
I have posted on RI for over two years. I will grant that my writing may seem obscure but I took Blake’s advice seriously, long before marmot used the quote for his sig line. The trouble is tazmic, because my basic theme is that there is a virus within intellect, the degree that the reader is offended is closely related to how ‘smart’ that person is.
There is the danger that you are still constructing a dualistic system.
It seems to be in the nature of appearances, for dualism to stay close at hand.
Turning against 'the outside' as trivial compared to...let's say, the
transformative possibilities of the inside, is still setting up a goal within
the context of order, manipulate & control, just like religions always have.
So here is the funny thing about that. I post some stuff on Stormy Weather. You may consider it to be oriented too far towards ‘transformative possibilities of the inside’.
At any rate, one comment made, was that I considered myself to be; ‘a waterboy carrying buckets between the gasmasters and the fixed formers’. Said in reference to a consciousness as water allegory where GC is melting the ice created by our static relation between psyche and reality. I was pushing the idea that we might enjoy, oh, at least a millennium or so of consciousness flowing like water before so much heat is applied that the water is turned into gas. No response, huh, funny that, I’m the Rodney Dangerfield of bloggers. (There is a reason his name is DANGERFIELD)
Telling people they aren't free, that they are imperfect.
Tell me more.
If people became free of the programming you oppose, then they would
only have left the What and the When to oppose, and they would see
it very clearly for what it is.
I do not ‘oppose’ the programming; I merely maintain that the better we recognize the nature of the programming, the more we will be able to change or influence that programming.
Thanks again tazmic
All these things will continue as long as coercion remains a central element of our mentality.
![\<]](./images/smilies/confused0044.gif "confused")
