'Illuminati' as 'deviant adepts'

[American Dream]

Actually, I'm really fond of "not responding" as a strategy to reduce conflict on RI.

You always have the choice to break the loop.

You know what AD thinks.

You know he won't change.

You know you can, though.

I am going to add my one and a half cents here and say that not responding is definitely my preferred strategy towards the trio with which I had conflict in the past: slad, Searcher and slim. I profoundly disagreed with them about Gilad Atzmon and we had it out at length. I learned a lot about new topics in the process but I wouldn't say any participant's thinking was fundamentally changed through the fight itself- at least not as far as I saw. So I'm over that now- and am in the "ignore" mode towards them, which I think is really for the best.

The truth is, when I post these days, I'm not really thinking of these three in particular at all, even if and when the material contradicts some deeply held beliefs. I'm basically over that. It seems that slad and Searcher don't perceive things that way and continue fairly tenaciously trying to engage. I don't want to and will not. I wish they would accept this. Slim, I understand is changing in certain ways- which I won't claim to fully understand, so I'll let him be his own person and represent his own stance for himself.

All that said, I'm going to continue having opinions that are going to rub some people here the wrong way, for sure. I object to the efforts to forge a conspiracy consensus as "of course we're all partisans for Putin's Russia", for example. I'm much more critical of the big powers generally and for grassroots anarcho-left efforts instead. I'm also deeply troubled by the role of the far right in conspiracy culture and will continue to be. I am not a right wing person in much of any way and my posts will reflect this but this is an anti-fascist board, right?

Other than that, I will have some other pet peeves that may rankle, such as the conflation of spirituality with racism and fantastic assertions in conspiracy circles, which a given individual may or may not like but that's why we have the "ignore" function.

It's occurring to me that this here is an opening for the insertion of endless invective about other opinions of mine that a given poster may strenuously object to. Spare us, please. Yes, I have opinions that you disagree with. The world will keep spinning just the same. Don't forget that we do all have an "ignore" option.

[brainpanhandler]

Jesus fuckin christ AD. Could you write a more passive aggressive screed? Don't answer that question. Just shut up, please.

[Sounder]

I wonder what they envy about us? Our capacity to love, or our capacity for hate? If they do feed off of our fear, they've had a veriable smorgasbord ever since 9/11. Everyone running around scared about terrorists or global warming or nuclear weapons, and the fear is constently being ratchetted up. It's like the "Matrix". We're frigging batteries for these beings. No wonder people are turning to Obama and his "audacity to hope". People are tired of being used. But what to do, what to do? How do we resist? What psychic and physical weapons do we have at our disposal? What should we do?

Skunkboy

Always remember that the true spirit of Budo is that soft overcomes hard, small overcomes large. - Mas Oyama

Let’s take this seriously. Soft is non-reactive, small is the learning from moment to moment engagement with experience that may potentially turn into something larger when more folk turn to it, in preference to the current command and control signals that drive the interpretations of each experience.

Let experience speak for itself instead of seeing its value in terms of advantage derived in a political rat race.

People are tired of being used. But what to do, what to do? How do we resist? What psychic and physical weapons do we have at our disposal? What should we do?

annie wrote…
Starve them?

Pretty much, we have the creative potential to act instead of always reacting. Balance is our basic tool and aspiration to balance is a useful guide for determining what to do.

Sounder said:

"How about we apply our discrimination to look for the negative element within our own pretences, and look for the positive element (information) within the category that you do not naturally resonate with. "

Our discrimination becomes misapplied when it plays second fiddle to our personal identity.

Our source for personal identity is our intellectual activities, rationalizations really, seeking to place experience within the confines of common categories.

While John Lash builds his identity around Gnostic categories, those categories, same as the categories of the rest of our dominant narrative, are predicated on a split model of reality.

Despite this handicap, John Lash does seem quite bright at times.

I found the following review to be helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R37VEFEW9T ... EFEW9TOQAC

Again... The conclusion Lash is drawing, or the larger truth, is not without merit. There is definitely a relationship between early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Paul, Jesus, and definitely Jesus's brother James, were to some degree inspired by the same messianic crazy talk as were many Jews at that time. And it was crazy talk! But to what degree? There has been a lot of scholarly work done on this topic and the short end of it is, like much of early Christianity, We just don't know. What we do know, however, is that Paul certainly had his own take on who Jesus was and was determined to take that vision to the Gentiles. Paul was certainly a Hellenist, as were many Jews who adopted "the Way" (This is in Acts!) and they basically fought with the Jerusalem crowd of James and Peter right out of the gate. But beyond that, we're making educated guesses, at best! Not to mention, the portrait of Paul particularly becomes so black and white, so dismissive, so heavy handed that it misses much of the importance of Paul - not least his complexity.

So why try to put forth speculation as fact? Why go to such lengths to try to build this grand conspiracy about Zaddikim and the secret identity of Melchizedek when you don't have to? It just leads to more sloppy thinking. All he had to say, which is factually true, that the Jews had never worked out a clear idea of the Afterlife, and that the idea of resurrection and end time was a late comer to the game (circa 250 BC). That Paul (for sure) and maybe Jesus, James and Peter were proponents of some scenario whereby there would be a "rapture" like moment and God would swoop down in his chariots and rescue the righteous. But this view of the afterlife was quickly succeeded by the Greeks idea of "heaven," minus the Apocalypse, and this happened very early on - certainly by the time Luke was writing and maybe even Mathew. In fact, you might say that the popularity of Christianity among the Gentiles was in part because this view of the Afterlife did evolve, becoming one whereby the focus was on eternal justice as opposed to resurrection of the dead. But Lash has no desire to explain that. He basically wants to point a finger at a fanatical Jewish movement as the culprit and cause of all the earth's troubles.

So sadly, some 400 pages later, you have essentially a work of fiction masquerading as a "grand theory." I wouldn't mind so much, because I am in general sympathetic to the damage wrought by religions (not just Abrahamic). But are we well served by this sort of sloppy thinking? By the mixing of fiction and non-fiction, speculation and theory such that in the end nothing really is taken seriously?

[Sounder]

I wonder what they envy about us? Our capacity to love, or our capacity for hate? If they do feed off of our fear, they've had a veriable smorgasbord ever since 9/11. Everyone running around scared about terrorists or global warming or nuclear weapons, and the fear is constently being ratchetted up. It's like the "Matrix". We're frigging batteries for these beings. No wonder people are turning to Obama and his "audacity to hope". People are tired of being used. But what to do, what to do? How do we resist? What psychic and physical weapons do we have at our disposal? What should we do?

Skunkboy

Always remember that the true spirit of Budo is that soft overcomes hard, small overcomes large. - Mas Oyama

Let’s take this seriously. Soft is non-reactive, small is the learning from moment to moment engagement with experience that may potentially turn into something larger when more folk turn to it, in preference to the current command and control signals that drive the interpretations of each experience.

Let experience speak for itself instead of seeing its value in terms of advantage derived in a political rat race.

People are tired of being used. But what to do, what to do? How do we resist? What psychic and physical weapons do we have at our disposal? What should we do?

annie wrote…
Starve them?

Pretty much, we have the creative potential to act instead of always reacting. Balance is our basic tool and aspiration to balance is a useful guide for determining what to do.

Sounder said:

"How about we apply our discrimination to look for the negative element within our own pretences, and look for the positive element (information) within the category that you do not naturally resonate with. "

Our discrimination becomes misapplied when it plays second fiddle to our personal identity.

Our source for personal identity is our intellectual activities, rationalizations really, seeking to place experience within the confines of common categories.

While John Lash builds his identity around Gnostic categories, those categories, same as the categories of the rest of our dominant narrative, are predicated on a split model of reality.

Despite this handicap, John Lash does seem quite bright at times.

I found the following review to be helpful.

http://www.amazon.com/review/R37VEFEW9T ... EFEW9TOQAC

Again... The conclusion Lash is drawing, or the larger truth, is not without merit. There is definitely a relationship between early Christianity and the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Paul, Jesus, and definitely Jesus's brother James, were to some degree inspired by the same messianic crazy talk as were many Jews at that time. And it was crazy talk! But to what degree? There has been a lot of scholarly work done on this topic and the short end of it is, like much of early Christianity, We just don't know. What we do know, however, is that Paul certainly had his own take on who Jesus was and was determined to take that vision to the Gentiles. Paul was certainly a Hellenist, as were many Jews who adopted "the Way" (This is in Acts!) and they basically fought with the Jerusalem crowd of James and Peter right out of the gate. But beyond that, we're making educated guesses, at best! Not to mention, the portrait of Paul particularly becomes so black and white, so dismissive, so heavy handed that it misses much of the importance of Paul - not least his complexity.

So why try to put forth speculation as fact? Why go to such lengths to try to build this grand conspiracy about Zaddikim and the secret identity of Melchizedek when you don't have to? It just leads to more sloppy thinking. All he had to say, which is factually true, that the Jews had never worked out a clear idea of the Afterlife, and that the idea of resurrection and end time was a late comer to the game (circa 250 BC). That Paul (for sure) and maybe Jesus, James and Peter were proponents of some scenario whereby there would be a "rapture" like moment and God would swoop down in his chariots and rescue the righteous. But this view of the afterlife was quickly succeeded by the Greeks idea of "heaven," minus the Apocalypse, and this happened very early on - certainly by the time Luke was writing and maybe even Mathew. In fact, you might say that the popularity of Christianity among the Gentiles was in part because this view of the Afterlife did evolve, becoming one whereby the focus was on eternal justice as opposed to resurrection of the dead. But Lash has no desire to explain that. He basically wants to point a finger at a fanatical Jewish movement as the culprit and cause of all the earth's troubles.

So sadly, some 400 pages later, you have essentially a work of fiction masquerading as a "grand theory." I wouldn't mind so much, because I am in general sympathetic to the damage wrought by religions (not just Abrahamic). But are we well served by this sort of sloppy thinking? By the mixing of fiction and non-fiction, speculation and theory such that in the end nothing really is taken seriously?

[American Dream]

Jesus fuckin christ AD. Could you write a more passive aggressive screed?

I mean this very seriously- with no snark implied whatsoever: What would you suggest as a better alternative?

[seemslikeadream]

you missed this part............

Just shut up, please.

and you finally did it...../.got that name in Jeff's thread...I really didn't think you would do it but you did...there you go Jeff ..you're in the club now

just couldn't help yourself could you?

[brainpanhandler]

We're all doomed anyway.

[coffin_dodger]

^^^ thanks bph, you made my day.

[American Dream]

Jesus fuckin christ AD. Could you write a more passive aggressive screed?

I mean this very seriously- with no snark implied whatsoever: What would you suggest as a better alternative?

Really there is no better alternative. I am deeply annoyed by some of these interactions and yet I don't want to feed the fire unnecessarily, either. I see things as I see them- and that will only change in increments as I engage with well-reasoned arguments. My thinking on Counterpunch, John Lash, the far Right, Ukraine, Judeophobic doctrines, Annunaki Theory, Israel Shamir and other such things have certainly evolved over the years- through processes definitely involving R.I.- which exposed me to things that weren't even in my awareness at all.

Does this mean I am likely to develop sympathies for the Right? For fantastic doctrines supported by sketchy evidence? The odds are very, very small that this will be the case. So it's basically a fucked situation. That's why I'm trying to stay true to my values but also hold fast to the choices I have made regarding the "ignore" option...

[Searcher08]

Jesus fuckin christ AD. Could you write a more passive aggressive screed?

I mean this very seriously- with no snark implied whatsoever: What would you suggest as a better alternative?

Really there is no better alternative. I am deeply annoyed by some of these interactions and yet I don't want to feed the fire unnecessarily, either. I see things as I see them- and that will only change in increments as I engage with well-reasoned arguments. My thinking on Counterpunch, John Lash, the far Right, Ukraine, Judeophobic doctrines, Annunaki Theory, Israel Shamir and other such things have certainly evolved over the years- through processes definitely involving R.I.- which exposed me to things that weren't even in my awareness at all.

Does this mean I am likely to develop sympathies for the Right? For fantastic doctrines supported by sketchy evidence? The odds are very, very small that this will be the case. So it's basically a fucked situation. That's why I'm trying to stay true to my values but also hold fast to the choices I have made regarding the "ignore" option...

Whenever I hear a person say "there is no alternative" I have pause for thought. There is an informal law of creative thinking that says
"Proof is often nothing more than a lack of imagination"

My understanding is that you want to be able to put forward your opinion and have it acknowledged as a different and have it respected as such, whether others agree with it or not and FROM THERE to engage in arguement or debate about the content, knowing that YOU are respected
Is that accurate?

I saw you want acknowledgement and respect for your opinions.
Fine - lets put that as a need which you are not getting met.

You also say that you are swayed by arguments, however I have NEVER seen you change your mind when something you post is challenged. So for example, I have no objection to logic or critical thinking. FFS I studied Relevance logic and Modal Logic at graduate level. Yet when I have engaged you on challenging logic itself (using logic), you always treat it as an attack on critical thinking. Dont mistake a request for a conversation outside the sytem with an attack on your beliefs.


So, one dimension of this problem is about meta-language. It is about being able to stand aside and talk about the interactions themselves WITHOUT being caught up in the lower level exchange.

My own needs are around ensuring that there is a fast paced rapid VIBRANT General Discussion, where what is happening is DISCUSSION and DIALOGUE.
The amount of discussion is measureable by the behaviour of the threads.

When a thread has post after post by the thread originator, without reply, that thread has shifted its role from Discussion topic to Information Collection topic.

If this process were to happen from each person in GD, gradually the number of Information Collection threads would increase. Every additional Information Collection thread on GD means one less Discussion taking place.

Another frame is "What would happen if everyone here did this behaviour?"
Creating Information Collection threads is an archival / research function, not a conversational function. Both are needed, however one must watch out for the Library taking over the Cafe.
Cross posting on GD is like putting library books on the Cafe tables.

This is not saying the books should be thrown out or are not valuable, quite the contrary - if there is a large amount of information, the issue then becomes a design one, of how to make that more clearly and easily available.

From the Chatting people point of view, their needs are to join a table order from the menu and go. If no one is interested, that table is quickly cleared (moved off General Discussion) At no time are there tables filled with books from the Library.

Can you see how, interestingly, for RI to actually expand General Discussion, the Cafe obviously needs as many tables (ie topics) 'turning over' as it can.

Then regarding the Library, there is a whole question of how to set it up.
Data Dump (no offense) could be described charitably as 'less than optimal'

[solace]

Jesus fuckin christ AD. Could you write a more passive aggressive screed?

I mean this very seriously- with no snark implied whatsoever: What would you suggest as a better alternative?

Really there is no better alternative. I am deeply annoyed by some of these interactions and yet I don't want to feed the fire unnecessarily, either. I see things as I see them- and that will only change in increments as I engage with well-reasoned arguments. My thinking on Counterpunch, John Lash, the far Right, Ukraine, Judeophobic doctrines, Annunaki Theory, Israel Shamir and other such things have certainly evolved over the years- through processes definitely involving R.I.- which exposed me to things that weren't even in my awareness at all.

Does this mean I am likely to develop sympathies for the Right? For fantastic doctrines supported by sketchy evidence? The odds are very, very small that this will be the case. So it's basically a fucked situation. That's why I'm trying to stay true to my values but also hold fast to the choices I have made regarding the "ignore" option...

Scab pickers will always be scab pickers. It's what defines them.

[seemslikeadream]

just who are the scab pickers ...surely not anyone here wouldn't you say?

[jakell]

"Scab pickers will always be scab pickers. It's what defines them."

A pointless circular statement that cannot be refuted (A will always be A, that's what defines it)
Quite a contrast to Searcher's well considered post before it.

[coffin_dodger]

Scab pickers will always be scab pickers. It's what defines them.

I find your 'mind-state' frightening. Anything that isn't in accordance with your ideal is your enemy. You literally spit out the words in a sneering, venomous stream of hate-filled rhetoric that is so contrived, it would be laughable if it wasn't so deadly earnest. If you knew anything of yourself, if you were conscious on any level other than rage, you might realise how poor of an ambassador for your cause that you are.

[Iamwhomiam]

(He also makes a good case for understanding the alien phenomenon through the Gnostic lens of the Nag Hammadi's Archons, but that's for another post.)

2,548 days and counting... Hey, 6 years, 11 months, and 22 days is but a blip in time.

Just wish Jeff could "Feel it" once again even if only on Blue Moons
(not the liquid variety; the next occurring July 31.)