Hello All

Discussion in 'Φ QANON & POLITICS' started by david, Jul 8, 2016.

  1. Rose

    Rose Φ

    But, isn't the promise of "unified", undivided, OBJECTIVE, unpropagandised minds ...
    Freedom from the Law of Averages?
    After all, from where does the Law of "Averages" originate??? ...
    If not from non-unified, divided, societally hypnotized, "incapable of objectivity", propagandised minds?
  2. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    I think I haven't communicated it clearly enough. There is a problem with your phrase "propaganda style persuasion techniques". Propaganda styles itself after legitimate persuasive methods. It (propaganda) is the fake, the imposter posing as truth. You may be confusing legitimate persuasive methods for "propaganda style persuasion techniques", resulting in a perception that someone is trying to fool you, when in fact they have no such intent.

    That's an enormous stretch to equate those two. You would have to believe that the intent of making that first statement about objectivity is to hypnotize someone. I don't see such an intent, because I understand why Peter Joseph suggests we don't think objectively due to the dominating influence of our programming. If we have been programmed, do we think objectively?
  3. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    Yes. And what is the primary goal of capitalistic corporations? Improve the bottom line. Maximize profit. That is basically greed. There is no real concern for parties who are outside the corporation unless those parties contribute to maximizing the corporation's profit.

    What I am suggesting is that capitalism as it is understood today is sociopathic.

    Absolutely not. You are forgetting that sociopaths aren't much different from normal people. They lack empathy, which changes their psychology in subtle but critical ways. Another way to look at it is that normal people are sociopaths with empathy. We tend not to look at it that way because the sociopath is the deviant, way outside the mainstream, making up only an estimated 2% or so of the population.

    If capitalism is inherently sociopathic, non-sociopathic legistators trust-busting from inside the system would probably not be a sustainable solution.

    Your programming is speaking there, Rose. It depends on what you are greedy for. What if you are greedy for a tide that will lift all boats? In other words, you are greedy to improve the lot of all humanity?

    Besides, no system is likely to be trouble-free, whether you include greedy individuals or not. Since when do limited and flawed humans make perfect systems?
  4. Rose

    Rose Φ

    I disagree, but you may have the last word on this Chico.
    In closing, I will simply post a definition of propaganda which to me is nothing more than a "spin" method utilized to invoke a preferred response that may run a gamut of possible intents as benign as definition #3. I did previously state it was my opinion Joseph believes in his information and is not, in his mind, attempting to deceive.

  5. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    No, I didn't forget. A good opening defense for a sociopath is to sarcastically claim he is a sociopath. You are not the first one to do that with me, so I've seen it before. In my experience, sociopaths always expose themselves, and with this embarrassing post of yours, you have done exactly that.

    Note that you will not be embarrassed at all by your post, in fact you will be proud of it! But a person with normal empathy making such a post would feel shame. I know I would.
  6. Chicodoodoo

    Chicodoodoo Truth-seeker

    Is there some special significance to this "having the last word" thing? I take it you don't want to discuss it further, because your mind is becoming closed on this subject. Is that the correct interpretation?

    This is a very poor definition, especially #3! Particular principles that an organization propagates is propaganda?! Would that include accepted facts and other truthful statements?

    No, propaganda is always designed to deceive while appearing non-deceptive. That is its fundamental purpose. It accomplishes this by judiciously mixing truths with untruths while withholding certain critical information needed to resolve the two.

    Yes, I noted that. That leaves room for him to be deluded but completely convinced that his delusions are reality. I did understand that on my first reading of your words. While I won't dismiss that possibility, I think it is more likely that it is his audience that is not understanding the context and supporting interconnections of his perspective.
  7. Rose

    Rose Φ

    I guess I say that because, either you are right and I am wrong, or I am right and you are wrong, or we are both right, or we are both wrong or a little of all, and it doesn't really matter to me. I will still basically like what I like, see things as I see them, believe what I believe, and dream what I dream, and you will, too... Eventually, perhaps, all will be clearer to me, or you, or not? As long as we respect and tolerate each other: All is well!..... Sometimes, you teach me.. possibly someday I may teach you... And the same with Gemma and David and maybe eventually others, or not... Still. I have enjoyed and find these conversations helpful. ... There is always a chance I may have a eureka and see things your way tomorrow.
  8. david

    david Member

    In this case its modeled off of Quantum processes. When locating an electron/photon we never know objectively where it is, we have a probability of where it will be based on us observing it, among other things. What makes it interesting is that one way of categorizing HOW we categorize (lol) is to look at the schism in physics: Einstein told us how BIG things behave...Planets, people, matter converting to energy, etc. But Einstein, and the whole neutonian paradigm become quite crazy when describing how small things work, and how forces affect small things. For example, technically under gravity because of the laws of how a force needs a greater or equal reaction, when we affect gravity the whole earth is affected and moves...sound ridiculous? Just an example of how we are unable to explain small, subtle things, sub atomic things and the way forces act with them.

    This brings us to trying to explain how small things work: The attempt to create systems and predictive models out of Quantum processes initially came when physicists were left trying to explain why it appeared our observation of an effect changed the effect and...how manipulating a process in one location could affect a process a great physical distance from the first process.

    Eventually philosophers tried to model other systems out of the attempt to model the behavior of electrons..so we have computer programming done with quantum processes, we have social problems, financial problems modeled based on probability and a calculus of things changing and while not subject to one conclusion, subject to the probability of any number of conclusions.

    This is a very different way of looking at the law of averages. I personally believe that when we are able to wrap our heads around quantum probability we will find a new way to conceptualize the world, and we will develop technology to match. But its not easy! Epistemology went through an entire purification where notions of subjectivity and objectivity were challenged and deconstructed. Are we biting off too much?

    Traditionally a law of averages is based on the probability of a singular real event. What we are talking about is non real event independent of how we are calculating the probability of an event! Its hard to wrap around that one! yet people are working with it and revolutionizing the financial industry, wargame industry, etc.
    • Like Like x 1
  9. david

    david Member

    People should know that Doo Doo and I are conjugal twins, separated at birth...unfortunately only one of us could have the brain... need I say more?

    There is nothing to discuss, moved past this long ago...You don't appear to understand subtleties about some of the terms you use, sorry that is just how it is, wish you did but you do not. The fact of the matter is you are a bully who, like a lot of remedials, believes by saying something enough times (Propaganda anyone) you will make it so...I am not intimidated by you, you humor me and that bugs you...You could certainly bother Brook couldn't you! Even chased Zook away! lol. Yes those are my opinions. Others may feel differently. All I know is I enjoyed looking in on those threads before the topic became "everything is sociopaths, and thats the root of everything...again and again."

    All you ever do is try to confirm and bully your way into discussions with your belief that sociopathology is the major issue of any discussion. You say it over and over again, then when people get upset you hide behind obligations inherent in a social discourse..."poor Doo Doo has a right to express himself, if one does not like him shitting on their thread, then put him on ignore!" So you wind up chasing off people who actually have interesting things to say and yes thats my opinion by the way, I don't pretend to speak for all.

    I gave you the last word, ignored a bit more of your gibberish but you have to remain relevant...this discussion isn't about you sociopath, it is about a topic at hand...we know your beliefs thank you for sharing them.... It shows your symptoms when you assumed my desire to process my son's film was to belittle you...who the fuck are you to belittle? lol. I am an up front sort of sociopath...I don't use children or small animals to belittle those I wish to succumb to my evil inclinations! bwaaaa hahahha! Doo Doo not much is needed to belittle you frankly...sorry just the truth.

    So once again, have a say or two, but do try to stay on topic please. I will stop responding to my dear friend, sociopath hunter to the stars, Indiana Doo Doo.... but all sociopaths beware! Doo Doo will find you and....castigate you! he will end your evil ways in a flash. Just look at how many evil doers he has banished from various social media...all socio paths I guarantee!
  10. david

    david Member

    yeah its your programming Rose! Seriously I have to comment on this statement. Here is an example to demonstrate where I am going with this comment: When I worked as a councellor in a Psych hospital, there were times when a person was not in need of psychiatric care. In advocating the system of health care that treats acute psychiatric problems it was necessary to believe that all patients that arrived were in need of this care. Furthermore if they resisted efforts, said that they had another issue not addressed in a psychiatric hospital...they were in denial.

    Well sure enough, we get this patient who complains that he is sick physically. He is told that he is depressed and in denial. He eventually gets permission to leave the hospital, comes back a week later, a new man. he had a food allergy that was causing his symptoms. Another example: a kid comes in with what looks like a first schizophrenic break. The psych intern wants to call it such, we as a staff implore her not to, because there could be another issue and marking somebody with this diagnosis can create a self fufilling prophecy. She is stubborn, so one of us calls one of our long term docs who makes sure the kid is not labelled such... turns out that the kid had a bad drug reaction... meaning that, while they may have had a schizophrenic break, if they did not, given that they can function, they have the benefit of the doubt.

    Anytime a system is used to respond to a critic, or anything that attacks the system it will, much like an organic entity, protect itself. Forn systematic epistemology this defense involves labelling the critic as demonstrating characteristics that affirm the system's judgement. So, if someone critisizes a judgement about a sociopath, they are obviously a sociopath.... Just find a behavior in the lexicon of sociopathology and stick it on the person. I must be the millionth person that Doo Doo calls a sociopath.

    If you disagree with Doo Doo you are programmed, vulnerable to the machinations of a sociopath like David, etc. Now...For a systematic epistemology to defend itself this way is reasonable. Anything that is to survive needs a way to protect itself...but, when individuals use this strategy of affirmation, which Psych nurses used very often (I may add)... it becomes a form of censorship. And it can be a fine line.

    So I would caution my good friend Doo Doo not to use this strategy of affirmation, as a substitute for rational thought and dialogue. We all have to check ourselves at times.