Ignorance Vs. Paranoia - Blindness Vs. Super-Awareness

[Quentin Quire]

In the Law Enforcement world it's called 'Linkage Blindness'. The inability to correlate small pieces of information from a huge pool of data. It's the sort of problem that comes from looking for the relations of important data in the mire of coincidence and irrelevant facts. Sorting the wheat from the chaff.<br><br>'Linkage Blindness' is what causes suspects in Serial Killer cases to be interviewed and discounted as Law Enforcement focus on more important leads and tips, leading to the killer to kill again. Ted Bundy, Green River and The Yorkshire Ripper are prime examples. And this is Law Enforcement, with manpower and huge databases at their disposal.<br><br>In terms of conspiracy theory and para-politics many here would attribute 'linkage blindness' as being the key problem that keeps the oppressors in power and the man/woman on the street ignorant. The sheer difficulty of tuning into the signal rather than the noise, the lack of mindset it takes to see past mis and disinformation, media spin and propaganda and look to the data and facts that link the ongoing cover-ups and crimes of the elite.<br><br>But if 'linkage blindness' is an issue, what of its polar opposite? For the purposes of this post I'll call it 'Linkage super-awareness'. The tendency to see seperate facts, data and information not as a mass of individual signals that MAY or MAY NOT be related but instead a inter-dependent and incestuous mass of information on the same wavelength.<br><br>I've noticed here and elsewhere that as soon as one becomes familiar with the modus operandi of para-politics some become sure that the majority of information, no matter how small or irrelevant, is irrecoverably linked to their own mindset, beliefs and theories.<br><br>It's almost as if some go from being blind to super-aware without seeing that there can be some standpoint inbetween.<br><br>It's ridiculous to say that everything involved in the social, economic and political paradigm is governed purely by coincidence or cock-up. But is it not also true that therefore saying everything in the same paradigm is governed and controlled by para-political and elite forces is also just as invalid?<br><br>Surely there is a medium in between? A medium where, yes, coincidence is a factor but there is also a guiding hand? Where sometimes the best laid plans go awry as much as they suceed? A world where not EVERY death, war, political change, social movement or media product is the deliberate work of the elite, the NWO or social engineers.<br><br>I believe in conspiracy. I believe in the existence of plots, movements and inter-linking networks that seek power and wealth at the expense of those 'below' them'.<br><br>But I also believe that being over-aware, over-analytical and overly-paranoid can be as much as danger as being igonorant and blind.<br><br>Once you believes that everything is false, can you discern whether something is true? Once you believe that everything is true, can you discern what is false?<br><br>Sometimes being Rigorous is more important that using your Intuition.<br><br>This is just a thought, but one that has been with me since I made the move from lurker to poster. I don't expect agreement, in fact I expect the opposite. But I'd like to see a discussion as to the validity of this thesis from all sides. <p></p><i></i>

[Qutb]

Great post. Very well put. <p></p><i></i>

[thoughtographer]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>This is just a thought, but one that has been with me since I made the move from lurker to poster. I don't expect agreement, in fact I expect the opposite. But I'd like to see a discussion as to the validity of this thesis from all sides.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Well, for what it's worth I agree with you. I also think this should be fleshed out and made into a sticky.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

Quentin,<br>Glad to see you putting this forward.<br>Did you see my answer on the other thread?<br>I noticed there was no response.<br>To a million-to-one "coincidence".<br>By the way, you can add Lord Strathclyde to the list.<br>You DO know where Strathclyde is located?<br><br>You carry on.<br>But if you come in on my threads I expect you to have FACTS lined up.<br>I'm not interested in your opinion.<br><br>Qutb,<br>Glad you are around.<br>You might want to tell pan about the "Strategic Comma" thread. I'd hate for him to miss it <p></p><i></i>

[havanagilla]

Thing is, the "rigorous" trend is already over represented in MsM and elsewhere. to counteract - it is allowed to experiment with the other side, without feeling bound to always be "balanced". <p></p><i></i>

[Quentin Quire]

Thanks. <br><br>I just call it as I see it and decided to put this out there in a rough form. I may just expand upon it, but I'm sure others here can bring something to the table also. Coherent and balanced discussion is far more powerful than one persons viewpoint, which in a way was the point of the post. <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Coherent and balanced discussion is far more powerful than one persons viewpoint<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I suppose that depends.<br>A coherent and balanced discussion amongst the wise ones?<br><br>Or the recollections of the girl that was raped? <p></p><i></i>

[Quentin Quire]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>You carry on.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Thank you, I intend to.<br><br><!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>But if you come in on my threads I expect you to have FACTS lined up.<br>I'm not interested in your opinion.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>That's fine Anti. I read 'your' threads and judge them based on my own opinions as you will do with others. I have no interest in flame wars or antagonism.<br><br> <p></p><i></i>

[Dreams End]

Good post, QQ. I have no idea what anti is on about this time, but I think this is important. <br><br>I'd add that even when there ARE parapolitical connections, we don't always have it sorted out and interpreted correctly. In fact, I think that happens a lot. <p></p><i></i>

[Quentin Quire]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>Or the recollections of the girl that was raped?<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>I have no idea what you are talking about. Please don't side-track this thread with random asides which have no relationship to the original post.<br><br>I have no interest in being drawn into a flamewar or antagonistic postings with you. <p></p><i></i>

[antiaristo]

<!--EZCODE QUOTE START--><blockquote><strong><em>Quote:</em></strong><hr>I have no interest in flame wars or antagonism.<hr></blockquote><!--EZCODE QUOTE END--><br><br>Indeed. <br>The way to avoid same is to have FACTS lined up.<br>Facts are precious.<br>Opinions are ten-a-penny. <p></p><i></i>

[chiggerbit]

Heck, I KNOW I am guilty of your over-awareness, QQ. But I go even beyond that. Even when I strongly believe that a conspiracy is dead-right-true, I am still looking for alternative explations, or even deliberate misdirections, which I suppose makes me super-duper vigilant... and suspicious and untrusting of "conspiracy theory conspiracies".. If I may use an example, my recently posted thread on Sibel Edmunds gets my dander raised about what THEY are covering up. BUT, I still keep a corner of my mind open, to see if she is being coy with all her tantalizing revelations, a bit like a strip artist. Time will sometimes tell. If only I live long enough. <p></p><i></i>

[StarmanSkye]

QQ --<br><br>Yes indeed -- an important point, well said. I think a great example of this are those folks, despite the best of intentions, who go from 'they LIE' to 'they lie about EVERYTHING' -- and so they reach the necessary conclusion that the Moon landings never happened -- with an impossible-to-meet burden of proof.<br><br>"But I also believe that being over-aware, over-analytical and overly-paranoid can be as much as danger as being igonorant and blind."<br><br>Indeed, that would seem to be the purpose of a lot of disinfo, as we're now seeing (possibly) with Hoffman's CD-but-no-plane thesis and a multitude of criticism as a dozen different 'certain' beliefs are brought to bear (along with plausable charges of official stooge-ploys) -- with so many passionately-argued POVs that I can't even keep-up with who-what-how-why details -- and once-reasonable beliefs are confounded by hyper-skepticism re: anything-and-everything -- ie., if anything is possible, nothing is certain.<br><br>OR, as you say very well, "Once you believes that everything is false, can you discern whether something is true? Once you believe that everything is true, can you discern what is false?"<br><br>I also see this proclivity in the hyper-vigilant criticism of authors/researchers who have had a long career in resisting fascism and trying to wake people up by retrieving and publicizing the well-buried, revisionist-discreditted, little-known true facts of history the PTB don't want revealed. I doubt if there's ANYBODY that is completely above all possible suspicion of having hidden interests and alterior motives -- so despite the critical info folks like Chomsky, Perkins, Goodman, Barr, or Rivero have provided to the public as part of its continuing education, they can and are impugned as disinfo agents, deep-cover spook propagandists, status-quo shills, elitist dupes, gatekeepers, corporate pawns, etc.<br><br>Being skeptical is necessary and important to maintain a degree of objectivity -- but at the point of paranoid confusion, it renders us near-catatonic with inability to have a well-informed opinion.<br><br>Havanagilla -- Not sure how you arrived at the conclusion that MsM encourages or is an example of intellectual 'rigor' -- I think we understand and can agree that much of mainstream media panders to superficial fluff -- its at-best a pale shadow of critical thinking, with MUCH closer links to advertsing than true 'teaching' and education -- ie., it's marketting and salesmanship, that is, deliberate manipulation of ideas and manufacturing opinions via identifying and targetting specific audiences with highly emotional-content 'messages'. In this, MsM is more involved with the 'memory' conditioning like Pavlov's dog of a subconscious reaction-impulse effect like intuition or instinctual response, than deliberate, self-conscious, engaged thought.<br><br>That is, I think MsM doesn't encourage deep-thinking as much as it does feeling -- not 'reason', but 'beliefs'. Stated simply --it's the difference between 'thinking' with one's head vs. 'knowing' with one's heart or gut. It's not a perfect analogy since true intuition isn't the ABSENCE of thought as much as it is an uncluttered, non-analytic and direct perception, ie., a 'different' kind of knowing, with at least the potential to be more immediate and truthful (or honest, not always the same thing).<br><br>Does that make any sense? <br>If not, don't feel indebted to belabour my bad (or ackward) analogy. It's a tricky topic.<br>Starman<br> <p></p><i></i>

[professorpan]

Quentin,<br><br>Excellent points. I hope everyone on this board reads what you've written.<br><br>And Anti, I read the "strategic comma" thread. It seems to me that CNN made a transcription error. Why did you want to draw my attention to that? I don't get it. <p></p><i></i>

[NewKid]

Quentin, you had perhaps the best line I've ever seen on this board in another thread (paraphrasing):<br><br>"are you suggesting that this man's rise to fame is some sort of military psychological operation? I rather doubt it . . ."<br><br> <p></p><i></i>