TED Deletes Talks by Rupert Sheldrake and Graham Hancock

[FourthBase]

The way I see it, TED has its place. If we're forced to renovate and clean a big decrepit house, it makes no sense for those who specialize in fixing spooky, shit-stained bathrooms to hold a grudge against those who specialize in reinforcing rotten support beams. Let them be beyond politics. If the Regime of Dirty Scoundrels falls, we'll all still need the enlightened pragmatism TED is selling, anyway.

EDIT: Again, not that this business of censoring the unorthodox is cool, at all.

[brekin]

FourthBase wrote:

The way I see it, TED has its place. If we're forced to renovate and clean a big decrepit house, it makes no sense for those who specialize in fixing spooky, shit-stained bathrooms to hold a grudge against those who specialize in reinforcing rotten support beams. Let them be beyond politics. If the Regime of Dirty Scoundrels falls, we'll all still need the enlightened pragmatism TED is selling, anyway.

Friend, if I have learned anything it is that we can't get beyond politics.
Case in point, the man who started TED is Chris Anderson. He use
to be an editor in chief of Wired until 2012 but left to lead a start up,
3D Robotics, specializing in drones. Now besides TED
he heads a company whose goal is to bring a "droned filled future"
to the public.

I wonder how many TED talks have been critical of drones?

http://www.ted.com/pages/42
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Ande ... 8writer%29
http://www.engadget.com/2012/11/19/3d-r ... ed-future/

[FourthBase]

Sigh. I do always hate seeing that the gift horse really does have gum disease, and herpes.
But, so, what then? We're going to run all out of horses if we have to shoot every tainted one.

[brekin]

FourthBase wrote:

Sigh. I do always hate seeing that the gift horse really does have gum disease, and herpes.
But, so, what then? We're going to run all out of horses if we have to shoot every tainted one.

Well, I think one of the problems with TED's apoliticalness (and really being "apolitical" is just a form of
promoting an elite form of governance that supports the status quo) is that by not taking into account
present day politics they are promoting abstract solutions to concrete problems. In short they are selling
Utopia. To the disenfranchised on the one hand who want positive solutions and the technocrats and digerati on the
other hand who already benefit from the military/industrial/academic complex but may not want to acknowledge how they benefit from it.

They are gifting a ghost horse while riding a pale one. A bullet has no effect on either one.

[geogeo]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TED_%28conference%29#Controversies_and_criticism

'Nassim Taleb accused TED of intellectual dishonesty and lack of substance in the latest edition of The Black Swan (2010). He calls TED a "monstrosity that turns scientists and thinkers into low-level entertainers, like circus performers." Taleb spoke at TED2008. He claimed that the curators did not initially post his talk "warning about the financial crisis" on their website on purely cosmetic grounds.[58]'

Does Zizek get to go? [url]http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/cynicism-as-a-form-of-ideology/[url]

Seems like a clever extension of the culture wars and the cultural Cold War waged by venture capitalists. Since when did techno-gurus and venture capitalists become well-regarded public intellectuals? Thank you Nicholas Negroponte.

[FourthBase]

Yes, yes. But can we pause to appreciate the number of legitimately good ideas that TED, even if despite itself, winds up promoting? The author of Sex at Dawn, for example, just gave a TED talk. It's not uploaded yet, and an excessive delay in uploading it may wind up suggesting willful negligence on TED's part, but it happened, he spoke, and that idea was accorded a mainstream legitimacy. So what if douchebags like Bono were also there, selling ghost horses. There are still a multitude of real horses propagated at TED, ones with pretty good teeth, too. We'd be fools not to recognize that, also. "Abstract solutions for concrete problems"? What, like mosquito nets? That's abstract? Fuck the positive practical solutions, because they aren't predicated on an understanding of deep politics, is that it? That can't be it.

[brekin]

FourthBase wrote:

Yes, yes. But can we pause to appreciate the number of legitimately good ideas that TED, even if despite itself, winds up promoting? The author of Sex at Dawn, for example, just gave a TED talk. It's not uploaded yet, and an excessive delay in uploading it may wind up suggesting willful negligence on TED's part, but it happened, he spoke, and that idea was accorded a mainstream legitimacy. So what if douchebags like Bono were also there, selling ghost horses. There are still a multitude of real horses propagated at TED, ones with pretty good teeth, too. We'd be fools not to recognize that, also. "Abstract solutions for concrete problems"? What, like mosquito nets? That's abstract? Fuck the positive practical solutions, because they aren't predicated on an understanding of deep politics, is that it? That can't be it.

A request? Could you quote me if you are referring to my replies? That way I know whether or not to direct energy into responding, if it is a general comment or if it is directed towards someone else.

Too many good, practical solutions die due to benign neglect of, forget even deep politics, but plain old regular politics. Even these solutions can be used to pimp hopeless or nefarious agendas. Renewable energy anyone? That old chestnut will probably be dragged along until the last of our mutated, subsistence level mutated progeny crawl after it. Would adoption of renewable energy mitigate or solve many ills? Of course. Whats stopping it? Politics.Same with mosquito nets, life saving vaccines, food aid, etc in developing areas. To not consider the political reasons why these things don't get implemented in earnest is to play with abstractions. Politics is just the distribution of resources among various groups. To say "we can solve x by applying y", and not consider the power structure that controls both the method of "by applying" and the resource "y" is abstraction.

In the post Obama term 1 anyone who doesn't consider the how of what is promised, and not just the what, I consider utopian.

TED talks for me basically boil down to the old joke used about economists:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat.
A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says, "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."

[Edit] I do admit of course to watching and enjoying a TED talk on occasion so I to am guilty of indulging in magic can-opener thinking.

[FourthBase]

FourthBase wrote:

Yes, yes. But can we pause to appreciate the number of legitimately good ideas that TED, even if despite itself, winds up promoting? The author of Sex at Dawn, for example, just gave a TED talk. It's not uploaded yet, and an excessive delay in uploading it may wind up suggesting willful negligence on TED's part, but it happened, he spoke, and that idea was accorded a mainstream legitimacy. So what if douchebags like Bono were also there, selling ghost horses. There are still a multitude of real horses propagated at TED, ones with pretty good teeth, too. We'd be fools not to recognize that, also. "Abstract solutions for concrete problems"? What, like mosquito nets? That's abstract? Fuck the positive practical solutions, because they aren't predicated on an understanding of deep politics, is that it? That can't be it.

A request? Could you quote me if you are referring to my replies? That way I know whether or not to direct energy into responding, if it is a general comment or if it is directed towards someone else.

Too many good, practical solutions die due to benign neglect of, forget even deep politics, but plain old regular politics. Even these solutions can be used to pimp hopeless or nefarious agendas. Renewable energy anyone? That old chestnut will probably be dragged along until the last of our mutated, subsistence level mutated progeny crawl after it. Would adoption of renewable energy mitigate or solve many ills? Of course. Whats stopping it? Politics.Same with mosquito nets, life saving vaccines, food aid, etc in developing areas. To not consider the political reasons why these things don't get implemented in earnest is to play with abstractions. Politics is just the distribution of resources among various groups. To say "we can solve x by applying y", and not consider the power structure that controls both the method of "by applying" and the resource "y" is abstraction.

In the post Obama term 1 anyone who doesn't consider the how of what is promised, and not just the what, I consider utopian.

TED talks foroften-ssically boil down to the old joke used about economists:

A physicist, a chemist and an economist are stranded on an island, with nothing to eat.
A can of soup washes ashore.
The physicist says, "Lets smash the can open with a rock."
The chemist says, "Let’s build a fire and heat the can first."
The economist says, "Lets assume that we have a can-opener..."

[Edit] I do admit of course to watching and enjoying a TED talk on occasion so I to am guilty of indulging in magic can-opener thinking.

And so, by promulgating these practical solutions in an unpolitical vacuum, and potentially whipping up a widespread demand for specific positive solutions, educating the upper-middle masses in a way where ordinary halfway-smart people can understand the rationale for specific solutions, and communicate that understanding to others, and use the rationales and the often-inexpensive bottom line to pressure their representatives, assemble and advocate for those solutions to receive more funding or if ready be implemented...yeah, I guess none of that could ever affect the power structure, which is comprised by artificially-intelligent robots who are invulnerable to populist pressure...oh wait, no, GOOD NEWS, the power structure is still just a bunch of other human beings. But no, even when an actual rusty can-opener washes up on shore next to the can, there's a fourth guy, the pessimistic parapolitically-minded intellectual, who will say, "No, that either can't be a real can-opener or it will never work, because Poseidon and his cronies would never let us have a real or functioning can-opener." Admiral, it may not be a trap. Or, it may only be a mousetrap, and we are not mere mice, we are nothing less than human beings, and that's all the power structure is, too.

[JackRiddler]

This may be a lot simpler than the argument suggests.

Here's an example: The New York Times is basically a fuckrag propagating the CIA worldview. And yet many good articles have been published in it, that we might cite without needing every time to apologize for it.

[brekin]

FourthBase wrote:

And so, by promulgating these practical solutions in an unpolitical vacuum, and potentially whipping up a widespread demand for specific positive solutions, educating the upper-middle masses in a way where ordinary halfway-smart people can understand the rationale for specific solutions, and communicate that understanding to others, and use the rationales and the often-inexpensive bottom line to pressure their representatives, assemble and advocate for those solutions to receive more funding or if ready be implemented...yeah, I guess none of that could ever affect the power structure, which is comprised by artificially-intelligent robots who are invulnerable to populist pressure...oh wait, no, GOOD NEWS, the power structure is still just a bunch of other human beings. But no, even when an actual rusty can-opener washes up on shore next to the can, there's a fourth guy, the pessimistic parapolitically-minded intellectual, who will say, "No, that either can't be a real can-opener or it will never work, because Poseidon and his cronies would never let us have a real or functioning can-opener." Admiral, it may not be a trap. Or, it may only be a mousetrap, and we are not mere mice, we are nothing less than human beings, and that's all the power structure is, too.

I've got to go to bed, but basically to me TED appeals to the Cargo Cult inside of us that believes a rusty can opener is coming. That the state of things right now are not because numerous good ideas have been subverted, sabotaged and squandered by those who have power but because not enough of the "good ideas worth spreading" i.e. the latest neo-Chautauqua silicon valley pop-psychology apps haven't been disseminated "educating the upper-middle masses". To me that is a significant difference of tactics. If TED helped pass some legislation that impacted any of the things I care about lately then maybe I'd have a change of heart. But TED seems to think they can make chicken salad out of chicken shit without getting dirty. The revolution will not be webcasted on TED.

JackRiddler wrote:

This may be a lot simpler than the argument suggests.
Here's an example: The New York Times is basically a fuckrag propagating the CIA worldview. And yet many good articles have been published in it, that we might cite without needing every time to apologize for it.

Agreed, the NYT and TED are great for learning about the world if you compensate for their obvious biases. But I think we can agree they are not manuals for changing it.

[seemslikeadream]

Unprecedented developments at TED


I appreciate and respect the fact that TED have now bitten the bullet -- which cannot have been easy for them -- and fully retracted their original incorrect allegations against the content of my TEDx presentation "The War on Consciousness". They have done so by crossing out the original allegations and publishing my rebuttal here: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/14/open-for ... sheldrake/

They have done the same as regards their original incorrect allegations against the content of the TEDx presentation "The Science Delusion" by my colleague Rupert Sheldrake.

TED have also opened up a new blog page ("Graham Hancock and Rupert Sheldrake A Fresh Take") here: http://blog.ted.com/2013/03/18/graham-h ... resh-take/

I want to put on record my immense appreciation and respect for the tremendous efforts made by so many members of my online community to get this injustice righted by their engagement on the TED website and the blog posts they have made there. I am touched and heartened, buoyed up and encouraged by this remarkable level of support and it is a sign of the times that our voice has been heard.

TED continue to refuse to restore the talks to the original platform on which they appeared -- the TEDx Youtube channel -- where my talk had been viewed by more than 132,000 people and where Rupert's talk had been viewed by more than 35,000 people before TED took them down. I regard it as unfortunate in the extreme that all the conversations and comments that appeared there have been hidden along with the talks, and that those original links have been broken, and I will continue to press for the restitution of our talks to the TEDx Youtube channel separate from and in addition to the presence they now have on the TED blog pages.

[crikkett]

Beat me to the post, SLAD. Thanks!

[Sounder]

Considering that the favorite wet dream of every technocrat is to be able to design the 'proper' expressions of being for all humans, it's not surprising that these types would be miffed at ideation that places consciousness in a primary role.

I do like the TED talks in general, many really sharp and committed folk get a forum and even if the sponsors have unsavory connections, well; the truth has only ever gotten out in dribs and drabs, and our own lack of cultivation of a dynamic consciousness must be at least partially responsible for the thin market in creating new correspondences that might re-frame the ordering of old forms.

I really liked the Ted talk where a fellow recounted his experience of not speaking for a year.

[FourthBase]

That the state of things right now are not because numerous good ideas have been subverted, sabotaged and squandered by those who have power but because not enough of the "good ideas worth spreading"

But, but, but...how have those ideas been subverted, sabotaged, squandered...and when they are, what is their ultimate fate, what is the endgame of those who subvert, sabotage, squander such good ideas? What is the outcome so dangerous to those who subvert, sabotage, squander...what do they fear happening and resolve not to let happen? Those good ideas must not be allowed to spread, they must be relegated to a dustbin on the fringe of history and consensus. And what is TED, perhaps despite itself, doing? Besides attempting to squash that critic of capitalism and muffle Sheldrake and Hancock, of course. Why, whaddya know, they're spreading a metric shitload of good ideas.

[slimmouse]

good luck to both Hancock and Sheldrake, particularly the former.

That Hancock vid is worth 18 mins of anyones time IMHO.

Im on the record, in any number of instances in suggesting that any message directed at breaking the overall existing proggramming of humani consciousness, in all of its meticulous constructions ( politics, economic, nationality, religion etc) is a very dangerous one to the reptoids.

Therefore its no real surprise that such presentations by Hancock and Sheldrake get the kind of disingenuous accusatory crap thrown at them as they have.

Dont challenge either the programming or the programme.