Towards Rigorous & Radical Conspiracy Theory

[TheBlackSheep]

Connected to this I think it might be helpful to ask, how do we know exactly when we are facing a valid source?

The idea of one "valid source" ultimately ends up being a justification for laziness, as well as an inevitable adoption - to a greater or lesser degree - of that source's biased viewpoint (all sources have em, they are human beings). The keyword is: cross-reference. Always cross-reference between multiple sources.

That said, I would definitely agree with the position that some sources are more accurate than others.

I co-sign this in big Hancock lettering.

I on the other hand object to this being attached to my name, as if you read my post above, it was not really a response to what I was asking in the source I am being quoted from here.

[FourthBase]

Well, I'd edit mine and excise your impertinent part, but...
Now you done gone quoted it yerself, lol.

[TheBlackSheep]

Oh well I'm just having a shit attack about nothing anyway. Evidently I wasn't able to squeeze one out this morning.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zN-nH97Kk00

[BrandonD]

The idea of one "valid source" ultimately ends up being a justification for laziness, as well as an inevitable adoption - to a greater or lesser degree - of that source's biased viewpoint (all sources have em, they are human beings). The keyword is: cross-reference. Always cross-reference between multiple sources.

That said, I would definitely agree with the position that some sources are more accurate than others.

I'm not sure if you misunderstood me, the issue I was getting at is, how do we know (or can we know) who is lying or themselves misled? If we cross reference and two sources (lets say mainstream media) and then one non-mainstream source tells the same line, and then we have another source (or multiple) that give a different line, in what way do we decipher which one (if any) is telling the truth? Even if we then had a third source which tells now another story, that neither reconciles with A or B, the issue is the same. I wasn't necessarily saying that there must be "one valid source".

"Connected to this I think it might be helpful to ask, how do we know exactly when we are facing a valid source?"

To put it in other words, how do we know when a source is valid?

I tried to make that clear in my original post, in particular by ending it with the thought "In the future might it not become next to impossible to actually know what is going on?" Implying that I was skeptical if any source at all could be considered infallibly valid, rather than implying that there existed "one valid source".

Cool, I wasn't really responding to you in particular but rather using your statements as a springboard to pontificate (haha).

Apart from personally verifying with one's own eyes the information being presented by a source, there is no way to truly know whether the source is valid or not. It is all second-hand verification and argument from authority (and consensus).

99% of the time our ideology dictates what sources we consider valid.

As long as people acknowledge that, then at least they are not an insufferable ass regarding their own point of view, and possess a degree of mental flexibility.

[TheBlackSheep]

at least they are not an insufferable ass regarding their own point of view, and possess a degree of mental flexibility.

Sometimes I wonder if that is ever truly possible and the only things that separates one person from the next is either the size of the faction they have amassed behind them, within which they can retreat and convince each other that they have the higher ground or else the instance of one party admitting defeat.

Any narrative will have shortcomings, all future ones included, however it is still open for us to create (realize, if you are a Platonist) a narrative that at the least replaces coercion as the central driver.

I know that at we can do that.

I have, to a significant degree in my own life, and the effects are nothing short of wonderful.

I just want to take a moment and examine the word coercion to get a better understanding of this situation.

Allow me to go through some definitions of the word. I am using Merriam-Webster dictionary as my resource.

First, Coercion:

":the act, process, or power of coercing"

That doesn't get us too far. Let's move deeper through the meaning of the word coercing:

"1
: to restrain or dominate by force <religion in the past has tried to coerce the irreligious — W. R. Inge>
2
: to compel to an act or choice <was coerced into agreeing>
3
: to achieve by force or threat <coerce compliance>"


This seems much more promising. But just to get to the bottom of these things, lets move a little deeper still. This definition seems to hinge on the notion of force, so we will move on through this definition:

": physical strength, power, or effect

: power or violence used on a person or thing

: strength or power that is not physical"


This gives some food for thought. Let's work with the first definition. physical strength, power, or effect. Well the word effect might seem to easy, so instead we'll move deeper into the definition of power.

": the ability or right to control people or things

: political control of a country or area

: a person or organization that has a lot of control and influence over other people or organizations"

Now we might be getting at something downright devious. The ability (or right) to control other people (or things). For the sake of thoroughness, let's get right to the bottom of this and try to secure our grasp upon this term of control:

": to direct the behavior of (a person or animal) : to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want

: to have power over (something)

: to direct the actions or function of (something) : to cause (something) to act or function in a certain way"

This is actually quite a lot to think about. Let's isolate two of these definitions for the sake of example:

": to cause (a person or animal) to do what you want"

and

": to cause (something) to act or function in a certain way"

To cause (a person, animal or something) to act or function in a certain way, or in the way you want. How do we do that exactly? Perhaps there are many ways of doing it. Maybe one of the way is through words, maybe through convincing them? Just to be sure, maybe we should take an added journey into the definition of the word convince:

": to cause (someone) to believe that something is true

: to cause (someone) to agree to do something"

To cause, so far that agrees with the definition above of control, how about the second parts "to believe that something is true" and "to agree to do something"... I wonder, does that reconcile with "to do something you want" and "to act or function in a certain way"?

Maybe I'm going off in all sorts of directions, but I wonder, what is it exactly we are doing when we are having conversations and expressing our (particularly differing) points of view?

Any narrative will have shortcomings, all future ones included, however it is still open for us to create (realize, if you are a Platonist) a narrative that at the least replaces coercion as the central driver.

I know that at we can do that.

I have, to a significant degree in my own life, and the effects are nothing short of wonderful.

So you mean that you don't use words to convince someone of your point of view? Wow, that is nothing short of wonderful.

You know, I have been thinking of something you said in one of your earlier posts:

We make sport of mocking some sub-models, but spend little time looking for (inherent) flaws of our own model.

You know what, you really have proven to me what the moral high ground is. I have got to start taking pointers from you.

...

No, let me be frank. The difference between me and you is that if I am setting out to convince people I am going to be open about it. I am not going to hide the fact that I am using tactics by spinning words:

I prefer to think of my speech as being idiosyncratic.

Of course, you weren't being obscurantist, you were being "idiosyncratic"... Whatever you want to believe.

Yes, I am trying to convince you, "coerce" you if you would have it that way. Here I am everybody, see me as I truly am.

[jakell]

Black Sheep, even though the amount of effort you are putting into this is impressive, from my point of view your argument has become far to attenuated, and I can't see it or you as they really are.

At such a point I try and realise the limitations of this medium and try to restate my status and objectives in the context of the thread.

[coffin_dodger]

How much more rigorous does your Theory need to be, AD?

Greenwald drops the bomb on government trolling of internet
viewtopic.php?f=8&t=37795

Your govt is trolling dissenters. Your govt is collecting every piece of information it can get it's hands on about you. Your govt is destabilizing various regions of the world. Your govt bullies and attacks sovereign states.

But it's always someone else's fault. Some boogeyman beyond your own control system. Swamp the content with this rhetoric - put it into peoples minds, each and every day, and it's bound to be true, eh?

[TheBlackSheep]

Black Sheep, even though the amount of effort you are putting into this is impressive, from my point of view your argument has become far to attenuated, and I can't see it or you as they really are.

At such a point I try and realise the limitations of this medium and try to restate my status and objectives in the context of the thread.

Sounder and I had begun a discussion or debate that were outside of the context of this thread. I like how you were able to bypass the arguements I had made with a simple criticism. From my point of view your criticism is far too attenuated.

[jakell]

Black Sheep, even though the amount of effort you are putting into this is impressive, from my point of view your argument has become far to attenuated, and I can't see it or you as they really are.

At such a point I try and realise the limitations of this medium and try to restate my status and objectives in the context of the thread.

Sounder and I had begun a discussion or debate that were outside of the context of this thread.

Well that's a start. all that remains is to define the new context, and see if you get any bites based upon that.


Talking of original context though, I'm interested in how that has played out. The OP seemed to desire a narrow compatibility based group centred around ideology in order to develop a 'rigorous and radical conspiracy theory'.

I suggested that initial ideology was not a strict requirement and nor was close compatibility. I'm wondering how this is progessing (if at all).

[TheBlackSheep]

Well that's a start. all that remains is to define the new context, and see if you get any bites based upon that.

It is going to be difficult to summarize the debate we were having, particularly as the focus has shifted a few times. Originally it began with a response Sounder had made to one of my comments which I found to be obscurantist, and I told him so. He had made another thread called The Mechanics of Power, where I had made a comment about obscurantism being a mechanic of power as old as antiquity, but I had not gotten a response there. That comment was before the response I had received from Sounder here, so I decided to tell him that I perceived his response to be obscurantist. What followed was a debate, on his side defending his use of language, which it seems he perceives as not being obscurantist at all, and I defended the opposite position, which was that such language was unuseful. From there the debate (or arguement, or whatever we will call it) developed along different lines.

Admittedly, the whole thing should have probably taken place within his other thread The Mechanics of Power, and it might be useful to move all of the comments between us to that thread, if it would be possible. Obviously the discussion has evolved beyond this initial triggering notion.

That is how I perceive it to have evolved so far, Sounder of course may perceive it differently. I'm not sure if this will now evolve into something like a judiciary process. It is possible that if this discussion is to continue it should be instead within the Mechanics of Power thread, and I am willing to follow it there if that is what we desire.

In reality I find most of what we are moving onto with that discussion to be somewhat moot (even in terms of my own arguements).

I had felt that the true mechanics behind our discussion were beind obscured. Though this is getting definitely into the realm of my own perspective, and I am certain that Sounder will have another of his own. It may or may not continue in his Mechanics of Power thread...

[Sounder]

You know what, you really have proven to me what the moral high ground is. I have got to start taking pointers from you.

Well isn't this just lovely, let the drama begin.

TheBlackSheep, high moral ground or moral ground of any kind has nothing to do what I talk about.

I have, to a significant degree in my own life, and the effects are nothing short of wonderful.

So you mean that you don't use words to convince someone of your point of view? Wow, that is nothing short of wonderful.

This seems to have set you off, so lets deal with it.

It appears that you take the claim of a wonderful life as grandstanding, this seems reasonable and maybe I should indeed keep that sort of thing to myself.

None the less it remains true that if one identifies and minimizes engagement with reactive mind and general engagement with the many coercive elements of our dominant narrative, then that person will have more energy to build healthy relationships.


The following refers to difficulties of being an anti-authoritarian in an authoritarian society. It is the more relevant part of a larger PDF, (read the whole thing.)

How Psychologists Subvert Democratic Movements
By Bruce E. Levine
PDF Version
Printer Friendly Version

October 2012



I began to think about this problem of psychologists pathologizing anti-authoritarians when I was in graduate school in the early 1980s. In the 1970s—when mental health professionals were moving forward instead of backward—psychiatry, in response to the pressure of gay activists, removed homosexuality as a mental illness from their diagnostic bible, the DSM. But 1980 was a sad year—Erich Fromm died, Ronald Reagan became president, and DSM III was published in 1980, my second year of graduate school.

DSM III had a huge expansion of psychiatric disorders, with many more child and adolescent diagnoses and I immediately noticed that DSM III was pathologizing stubbornness, rebellion, and anti-authoritarianism. Some of these new diagnoses subtly pathologized rebellion, but one diagnosis was an in-your-face obvious pathologizing of rebellion—“oppositional defiant disorder” (ODD).

ODD kids are not doing anything illegal. ODD kids are not the kids who once were labeled “juvenile delinquents”—that’s “conduct disorder.” Rather, the official symptoms of ODD include “often actively defies or refuses to comply with adult requests or rules” and “often argues with adults.”

When I discovered ODD, I told some of my professors that I was already a little embarrassed by the profession, but now I’m really embarrassed—didn’t psychologists realize that just about every great American activist from Saul Alinsky to Harriet Tubman to many great artists and scientists to scientist-activists such as Albert Einstein would have been diagnosed with ODD? In response, they diagnosed me as having “issues with authority.” I definitely do have issues with authorities who don’t know what the hell they are talking about. This was another reason that I withdrew from the mental health professional world.

Anti-Authoritarians

So, I went into private practice, where I received many referrals for teenagers diagnosed with ODD from colleagues who were uncomfortable with these kids. As I worked with the kids, I found that not only did I like most of them, but I also respected the vast majority of them, as they had real courage. They don’t comply with authorities whom they consider to be illegitimate and, most of the time, I concurred with their assessment. If they do respect an authority, they aren’t obnoxious and usually they clamor for adults whom they can respect and who genuinely respect them. Not only are these kids not mentally ill, many of them are what I consider to be the hope of the nation.

Over the years, I have worked not only with ODD teens, but also with adults diagnosed with depression, anxiety disorder, and substance abuse, and with psychiatric survivors who have been previously diagnosed with various psychoses. What’s impossible to ignore is how many of the individuals diagnosed with mental disorders are essentially anti-authoritarians. This was potentially a large army of anti-authoritarian activists that mental health professionals are keeping off democracy battlefields by convincing them that their depression, anxiety, and anger are a result of their mental illnesses and not, in part, a result of their pain over being in dehumanizing environments.

Earlier this year, I wrote a piece for AlterNet called “Would We Have Drugged Up Einstein?” about why anti-authoritarians are diagnosed with mental illness. I received a huge response, including many emails from people who have been diagnosed with depression and anxiety disorder who positively resonated with this particular sentence: “Often a major pain of their lives that fuels their anxiety and/or depression is fear that their contempt for illegitimate authorities will cause them to be financially and socially marginalized, but they fear that compliance with such illegitimate authorities will cause them existential death.”

So, over the years, I have become increasingly confident that there is a huge group of anti-authoritarian activists who are being pacified by the mental health profession and taken off democracy battlefields. I think this is one important reason why the number of Americans actively involved in democratic movements is so low.

This stuff burns up a lot of energy that could be put to positive use if for instance, our dominant narrative was less vertical in its authority distribution.

Nach, authoritarians do not care to witness the creative potentials of this segment of society.

[Sounder]

What followed was a debate, on his side defending his use of language, which it seems he perceives as not being obscurantist at all, and I defended the opposite position, which was that such language was unuseful. From there the debate (or arguement, or whatever we will call it) developed along different lines.

For the record, I did not say my language was not obscurantist, I said that I prefer to think of it as idiosyncratic. You said it seems obscurantist and I thanked you for being straight up with your opinion. I also said that I also do not care for obscurantist language, so I will try to watch out for that in the future, -so thank-you.

As to my non-response in the Mechanics of Power thread, I mean no disrespect, it's just that I respond to things when and how I feel like responding, no great sin in that.

Folk may note that the thread was started in 2012 with one immediate response, from aptly enough, crickets. (That's my posse) I was quite happy for that even though I never really responded. (I love crickets.)

[TheBlackSheep]

I am of the same point of view as this article. It was actually through studying psychology originally that I became "woken up" to what is taking place in society. I've always had an interest in mental health. Much of the findings in Social Psychology point towards the reality of the situation in society as well. I hope you will remember the times in my previous posts when I acknowledged agreement with your views as well as the times I saw fit to debate them.

The reason I personally saw "coercion" or various manifestations of it from being inevitable was not because I believed in the necessity of having us at each others throats, but because I am aware that there will always be a segment of society that is striving for more power than others are willing to give them, and this leads the way to coercion... I think it is ultimately necessary for individuals to realize this so that as the general population we are not left open to power politics used against us while we deny the reality of its existence. In attempting (successfully or unsuccessfully) to illustrate the ways in which coercion is a natural part of interaction (part, not whole) I was again attempting (successfully or unsuccessfully) to make it clear to others how these positions exist and are inevitable, so that we can see them more clearly, potentially in ourselves (though it is always easier to see the mote in someone else's eye and miss the beam in our own), because when we are aware of these power relations we can at least begin to stand our ground effectively against the authoritarian influences which seek to obscure these facts.

I am not positive on it, but sometimes I even wonder if conventional morality isn't preached to "the masses" for this reason. Not that I don't believe in morality, it is just that I do become skeptical when I see it preached by the very same people who put up a veil so that they can slit a few throats behind it. (note I am speaking generally here, but particularly about certain of the elite)

That is why in my last post I said that I think we were argueing on a moot point, because it seemed we were partially in agreement, though not necessarily in agreement about the terms of our agreement.

[TheBlackSheep]

For the record, I did not say my language was not obscurantist, I said that I prefer to think of it as idiosyncratic. You said it seems obscurantist and I thanked you for being straight up with your opinion. I also said that I also do not care for obscurantist language, so I will try to watch out for that in the future, -so thank-you.

As to my non-response in the Mechanics of Power thread, I mean no disrespect, it's just that I respond to things when and how I feel like responding, no great sin in that.

Folk may note that the thread was started in 2012 with one immediate response, from aptly enough, crickets. I was quite happy for that even though I never really responded. (I love crickets.)

I am willing to allow for misunderstandings. A debate isn't necessarily a bad thing. It will no doubt help to keep us sharp.

[jakell]

Well that's a start. all that remains is to define the new context, and see if you get any bites based upon that.

It is going to be difficult to summarize the debate we were having, particularly as the focus has shifted a few times. Originally it began with a response Sounder had made to one of my comments which I found to be obscurantist, and I told him so. He had made another thread called The Mechanics of Power, where I had made a comment about obscurantism being a mechanic of power as old as antiquity, but I had not gotten a response there. That comment was before the response I had received from Sounder here, so I decided to tell him that I perceived his response to be obscurantist. What followed was a debate, on his side defending his use of language, which it seems he perceives as not being obscurantist at all, and I defended the opposite position, which was that such language was unuseful. From there the debate (or arguement, or whatever we will call it) developed along different lines.

Admittedly, the whole thing should have probably taken place within his other thread The Mechanics of Power, and it might be useful to move all of the comments between us to that thread, if it would be possible. Obviously the discussion has evolved beyond this initial triggering notion.

That is how I perceive it to have evolved so far, Sounder of course may perceive it differently. I'm not sure if this will now evolve into something like a judiciary process. It is possible that if this discussion is to continue it should be instead within the Mechanics of Power thread, and I am willing to follow it there if that is what we desire.

In reality I find most of what we are moving onto with that discussion to be somewhat moot (even in terms of my own arguements).

I had felt that the true mechanics behind our discussion were beind obscured. Though this is getting definitely into the realm of my own perspective, and I am certain that Sounder will have another of his own. It may or may not continue in his Mechanics of Power thread...

Still, it's always a good mental exercise. It seems you are in bootstrap situation, ie questioning the language you use to question the language.

If (at least) one of you thinks that the tools are inadequate, then you need to design (define) some new tools, and the platform of common ground is a tried and tested one here.