The Hugh Manatee Challenge

[JackRiddler]

I know that many people find atheism and materialism liberating because they don't want to be beholden to cosmic forces, at least ones that bear intentionality towards humans.

Please don't project. It seems more to be true that people find the classical religions liberating because they want to be beholden to "cosmic forces bearing intentionality towards humans" (more often: identified sky-gods with human qualities, issuing written laws).

Something akin to what you suggest of yourself:

I guess for me, a sense of the sacred is liberating because it provides a way for me to find meaning by participating in a larger narrative. For others, I guess that might be stifling.

Not at all. If I find atheism and materialism (depending on definitions) "liberating" (is this always the right standard?) or appealing, then because these proceed from observation and reason, and not from what I'd like - or, even worse, from someone else's obviously human-invented story that I'm supposed to take on "faith."

And modeling life and the universe through reason does provide a "larger narrative," far more awesome than what most of the classical religions offer, and one that has the advantage of seeming best to fit experienced and observed reality. Nor is it incompatible with "a sense of the sacred," which is a part of that reality.

.

[slomo]

I like how Hugh has used this thread to rain down more verbal bird droppings of his "theories" upon our heads but has yet to actually address the OP, as I predicted.

The one thing we can predict with great accuracy is hughks behavior.

Another prediction -- he is loving this thread - it's all about him, with a great many people going to great lengths to rationalize his crazy talk, desperately trying to find some value in it.

Why?

For me, this thread has helped me figure out what I find valuable about his "bird droppings" (fertilizer for something more useful) and also what I find most objectionable about his presence. I agree with Plutonia that if there is any place for crazy talk, RI might be it. Much of what I say here would be utterly forbidden in my professional life, and I would wager that this is true for most RI regulars. In addition, I agree with both Hugh and Plutonia that regardless of how crazy the particulars of Hugh's theories are, there is at least some human agency in attempts to manipulate our cognition (as you yourself have noticed on other threads); this is worth discussing. But I also agree with you that the outcome of this thread has been what anybody and everybody would predict: Hugh's cowardly refusal to engage except for random potshots. While it may make him feel good that this thread is "all about him", in my opinion it makes him look like a coward and perhaps even a jerk. He may or may not have the social skills to perceive the negative press (or maybe he believes there is no such thing) but I would think it would be clear to the rest of us.

[slomo]

I know that many people find atheism and materialism liberating because they don't want to be beholden to cosmic forces, at least ones that bear intentionality towards humans.

Please don't project. It seems more to be true that people find the classical religions liberating because they want to be beholden to "cosmic forces bearing intentionality towards humans" (more often: identified sky-gods with human qualities, issuing written laws).

Something akin to what you suggest of yourself:

I guess for me, a sense of the sacred is liberating because it provides a way for me to find meaning by participating in a larger narrative. For others, I guess that might be stifling.

Not at all. If I find atheism and materialism (depending on definitions) "liberating" (is this always the right standard?) or appealing, then because these proceed from observation and reason, and not from what I'd like - or, even worse, from someone else's obviously human-invented story that I'm supposed to take on "faith."

And modeling life and the universe through reason does provide a "larger narrative," far more awesome than what most of the classical religions offer, and one that has the advantage of seeming best to fit experienced and observed reality. Nor is it incompatible with "a sense of the sacred," which is a part of that reality.

Jack, I don't want to get into an argument that would be mostly about hair splitting, since after you strip away all the misunderstandings created by imprecise language, I doubt we would disagree much. Some people find atheism liberating because of the notorious abuse of sky gods, others love reason and rational models more than anything else (who am I to disagree, I who have built my professional life around dry mathematical models of biology, medicine, and public health). Almost all models of larger Reality are based on unprovable assumptions, often hidden, and often based on unconscious attachments. I am merely calling attention to that fact and owning up to it in my own musings.

[JackRiddler]

Jack, I don't want to get into an argument that would be mostly about hair splitting, since after you strip away all the misunderstandings created by imprecise language, I doubt we would disagree much. Some people find atheism liberating because of the notorious abuse of sky gods, others love reason and rational models more than anything else (who am I to disagree, I who have built my professional life around dry mathematical models of biology, medicine, and public health). Almost all models of larger Reality are based on unprovable assumptions, often hidden, and often based on unconscious attachments. I am merely calling attention to that fact and owning up to it in my own musings.

Oh no, I agree fully: no need for this argument here, if in fact argument it is (is or isn't, both are fine). Do you think having built your professional life around dry mathematical models, some religion with mystery in it provides off-hours release?

[slomo]

Oh no, I agree fully: no need for this argument here, if in fact argument it is (is or isn't, both are fine). Do you think having built your professional life around dry mathematical models, some religion with mystery in it provides off-hours release?

Absolutely*.

But it's also true that I started out in life trying to understand life and the Mystery through logic and math, and hit a wall in my mid 20s, beyond which I couldn't proceed without acknowledging the non-rational.

*And since I'm bored, discouraged, and unmotivated with work right now, I've been spending more time on RI than I can really afford.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Pages later, here's the OP "challenge"-

Consider this: From inception to release, a Hollywood movie averages about two years. Some longer, some shorter, but about two years on average. If the CIA is using those to distract from specific events in the news, then they know two years in advance what the headlines will be. They either have a way of seeing into the future, or they create the reality from which they wish to distract. In either event, why would an organization with that kind of power even bother to try hiding their tracks? You're surely not contending that they have to justify their budget to Congress, or that the voters might actually have some influence over how things are run, are you?

In any event, arguments of plausibility aside, I have a proposition for you. If, as you contend, movies are being made to draw attention from news stories, then it ought to be possible to predict what will be in the news in the future by knowing what movies will be released on a given date.

Many events are scheduled years in advance or predictable OR scheduled for optimum effect based on surveillance - anniversaries, legislation, military campaigns, court cases.
The presidential and off-year election cycles used to reinforce social-control memes are too obvious.

Then there are the repeating calander Hallmark Card holidays with relationship tensions to amplify and get more single people reinforcing gender polarities that feed recruiting motivations. Hard on fragile social couplings are Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Valentines Days...

Career/lifestyle decisions follow the academic school year schedule, etc.

[slomo]

Pages later, here's the OP "challenge"-

Consider this: From inception to release, a Hollywood movie averages about two years. Some longer, some shorter, but about two years on average. If the CIA is using those to distract from specific events in the news, then they know two years in advance what the headlines will be. They either have a way of seeing into the future, or they create the reality from which they wish to distract. In either event, why would an organization with that kind of power even bother to try hiding their tracks? You're surely not contending that they have to justify their budget to Congress, or that the voters might actually have some influence over how things are run, are you?

In any event, arguments of plausibility aside, I have a proposition for you. If, as you contend, movies are being made to draw attention from news stories, then it ought to be possible to predict what will be in the news in the future by knowing what movies will be released on a given date.

Many events are scheduled years in advance or predictable OR scheduled for optimum effect based on surveillance - anniversaries, legislation, military campaigns, court cases.
The presidential and off-year election cycles used to reinforce social-control memes are too obvious.

Then there are the repeating calander Hallmark Card holidays with relationship tensions to amplify and get more single people reinforcing gender polarities that feed recruiting motivations. Hard on fragile social couplings are Thanksgiving, Christmas, New Years, Valentines Days...

Career/lifestyle decisions follow the academic school year schedule, etc.

Fair enough, but you are simply asserting that certain human organizations are able to exert fine control over certain types of events in the somewhat-distant future. I don't take that as self-evident, but I don't take the negation of your assertion as self-evident either. In order to prove or disprove it in any way that resembles science (this is about science, right?) you would have to formulate an experiment that could test it. That is what Sepka is trying to do. There may be some objections on the operational details of her proposed experiment (and my elaborations), but at least she is moving your hypothesis a few steps closer to true empirical investigation (i.e. science). Isn't that what you want?

[Elvis]

Here's a quick, unthought-out idea:

Assuming the government wasn't doing KWH before 1940, use the Google Ngram Viewer to find coincidental words, names, titles, "memes" etc. in pre-1940 books---homonyms etc. that coincidentally relate to something the government didn't want people to know then (but which we know about now).

I'll bet the frequency of co-incidence is about the same as it is today. (But I don't feel like trying it right now).

[Nordic]

Anyone who would so waste their time has way too much of it.

Unless, maybe, you're in prison or something.

I know -- how about HMW actually puts the time in to prove his own theory? Why try to do it for him? Makes no sense ....

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Somebody pm Nordic who has me on 'ignore' and point him at the Fort Bragg-soldier on plane thread and my post about keyword "Atwater."
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=33815

Here's how the CIA media is trying to hide exposure of psyops today (an hour ago) by morphing it into futuristic w.o.o..
Wired Magazine is a flaghip psyop for too-clever techies-

http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2012/01/time-hole/

Pentagon Scientists Use 'Time Hole' to Make Events Disappear
Wired News - ‎1 hour ago‎

By Katie Drummond
Soldiers could one day conduct covert operations in complete secrecy, now that Pentagon-backed physicists have figured out how to mask entire events by distorting light.

Yeah, distorting light into movies and television
Capra was doing the keyword/name psyops trick in the 1930s. So were others.

1938, to hide a new propaganda org with a battle for control between Nelson Rockefeller and Ben Cherrington
over the new Bureau of Educational and Cultural Affairs.

[barracuda]

Is anyone else as singularly unimpressed by the above post as I am? It breaks down into three constituent parts:

- the Atwater KWHJ in dbcooper41's thread, in which the CIA has invented one character named Atwater in order to stop you from thinking of another Atwater,

- the Wired article, with the attendant assertion that it is a psyop to hide psyops, and

- the strange case of The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse, a film with such an unlikely title it must surely have reference to the "old man in the boat". Nelson Rockefeller - highly doubtful. Lady parts - maybe.

Taken as a whole, not very illuminating, at least for me.

[jingofever]

Somebody pm Nordic who has me on 'ignore' and point him at the Fort Bragg-soldier on plane thread and my post about keyword "Atwater."

I'm not sure that one is going to win him over.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

Is anyone else as singularly unimpressed by the above post as I am? It breaks down into three constituent parts:

Nice framing. But do you have facts? No. You, a 'mod,' lied about the facts. Hmm. Emphasis my own-

="barracuda"- the Atwater KWHJ in dbcooper41's thread, in which the CIA has invented one character named Atwater in order to stop you from thinking of another Atwater,

Liar. A real person named Atwater was suprised to find things in his luggage he didn't expect to be there. A news article was thus viral marketed with specific keywords and themes.

- the Wired article, with the attendant assertion that it is a psyop to hide psyops, and

I've been outing Wired articles as psyops for years at this very board. So not the first time. Rather, s.o.p.

- the strange case of The Amazing Dr. Clitterhouse, a film with such an unlikely title it must surely have reference to the "old man in the boat". Nelson Rockefeller - highly doubtful. Lady parts - maybe.

Yes, an "unlikely title" with specific themes. Which a follow-up examination-ahem- would reveal to be a mirror of the contest for leadership which I previously explicated and you conveniently ignored. Oh, the value of the 'ignore' function.

Taken as a whole, not very illuminating, at least for me.

s.o.p.
I could dredge up old debates between you and me and prove you wrong, as I did, compared2what, but you'd just lock the tthread. s.o.p.

[Peregrine]

You, a 'mod,' lied about the facts. Hmm.
...
Liar.

How's about you ease up on accusing folks of lying? That's just shitty. Accusing someone of being a liar is a real pet peeve here.

[Hugh Manatee Wins]

You, a 'mod,' lied about the facts. Hmm.
...
Liar.

How's about you ease up on accusing folks of lying? That's just shitty. Accusing someone of being a liar is a real pet peeve here.

You missed the actual acts committed.
Look at the thread. barracuda posted an outright falsehood. ..."the CIA invented one character"...
And I accurately exposed it. Lying about facts is what is "just shitty."

It's long past time for this board to knowtice when facts are turned into vapors to dissipate them..