Without question, there are the malevolent who manifest in different guise. While defending against them, which we must, what precisely are we doing? In our often extreme difference, what is the latent mechanism that we both make appeal to and bring to play? In so doing there is a significant distinction inherent and which is part of our nature. Let’s try and examine (brainstorm) this distinction.
(C-V) Might it be that we’re addressing, I was going to say ‘battling against’ the quintessential, unchanging elemental, the unromantic art of human nature and which is toward closure of the entire species?
I am of a mind that if this is the correct perception, then any attempt to thwart is therefore a palliative, a fleeting one at that, because of the ‘backdrop’ as I just described it.
Where is the significance of the emotive / expressive mind in this? Many would argue not all are alike, and I think your answer would be fortunately that it is not the case, but the counter argument being; whether overt or covert-subconscious, all human beings are the same. It’s that different ways of diverting the impulse are colored as expressive, as rainbows, such that they offer mere illusion of not being of this universal nature.
Obviously this is the impetus to explore what might compete with, confuse and demoralize the consciousness which is running rampant obliteration, but what are the parameters and importantly, who precisely is the target group? I know the answer, but I’m organizing the responses in the doc.
(C-I) I think we should qualify the reference to all being the same, because in sameness lives a certain universal – it doesn’t mean to say that all are capable of destructive behaviour and the circumstances would not provoke that behaviour or the desire that fires it either. We protect against attackers, it does not make us same. We are a very highly developed nation and set the example in this through demonstration of our character and achievements. There are plenty and certain in particular, you don’t have to look very far, who are the very opposite, the attackers and destroyers, as is obvious.
Something I was thinking about last night. Most think that power and its capacity to dominate others thoughts and actions resides within ownership of wealth, political status / power and dare I say it, with the male.
This is not altogether correct because as we have shown and are in the process of showing, true authority to confront, confuse, educate or whatever condition is desired (PSYOP), begins with what we are within ourselves and the value we place upon it. This is how I see it.
I have no money at all, zilch, and claim to political position is nil, but that does not mean to say I (we) have no authority to really effect changes, more to completely dominate over what is destructive propaganda coming from you know where. To seduce with what hits much harder than any of the usual diatribes is the impetus for the PSYOP (the new mind war) effort.
Who we are is the foundation upon which our unique talent rests.
We have to prove it very obviously but first the context must be clearly defined, I mean the objective. Once that is stated, then we can go to town on unleashing, via a short and deep plummet into oblivion narratives that our presentation is capable of achieving.
I was reading something a while ago about this person from where you are (USA) and who was in prison for a long time. During incarceration he came to realize what, during his freedom, he never noticed was abundantly obvious in nature. The question asking this provoked was interesting to me because it centred on how social life designs out these facets and which most in their passing through, are oblivious. The person in question was anxious to feel the potential and freedom to explore in its multifaceted content and the concluding question asked was; not how many would become of this mind state, but how many actually can? I mean are capable whatever the preconditions.
On that note, I’m going to do something interesting and take a cup of tea outside.
(C-V) On the topic of movie dramas and how their subject plays with the minds of the majority, have you seen ***** *******? I watched it last night and it’s my opinion that the wealthy male supremacy thing is getting more tiresome by the day. Who funds this stuff? Kind of a naive question, because this feeds the masses what they already are attuned to, which is; the female is naturally subservient to the domineering, wealthy, athletic prowess male, who has control, to which she succumbs though only second to being first flawed by that combination of status elements. The pivot, one of she being the taker, he the giver. The reason I mention it is it typifies in varying degrees a very good percentage of the world’s population. We have to acknowledge this fact because they are our audience.
I know that the movie dramas and such suggest otherwise, more the ingredient of delight had in supposedly secret indulgences…but when you compare this with our presentation, there is nowhere that the man is not confronted by the undeniable equality of the woman’s influence, whether she’s wealthy, talented or not. It’s the acceptance, irrespective of her race, ideology, appearance, rank or whatever, being wielded and this overrides all else. This is how it should be in society but more often as I said, is not or even close.
Once stripped of all accouterments, then it really begins. This is somewhat contradictory to a world or situation thereupon that places value and use on ‘certain’ attributes because it is ‘certain’ people who are putting them there.
About what you were saying regarding financial means, not having them. It would not make any difference if you did have. It’s your desire to see the NEW MIND WAR come to fruition. It’s about nothing other than you; who, where and why. You have it all because of what lives beyond the surface of life and all of the completely phony values floating around within it, not to forget the dangers too. You also have those who are same and who control the world on low salaries and absolute dedication.
I was just told that there are at least a half million jihad multilingual websites. I’m thinking of waiting for the whistle to go over the top. Bang.
Are we moving off topic?
(C-I) It’s really two things, one is being enlightened as to the nature and value of what we are immersed in and the second is how to deal with it. The first is enabling oneself to a heightened awareness of one’s capacity to feel and to hold this awareness, and the second while this state of being is under attack via bombardment of what has little to no value whatsoever , even as a support.
We live in a global society born of conflicts, allegiances and fake constructs supporting them, and this reflects the intrinsic collective nature of the global society. Given this, it does not mean to say that one has to conform to the processes at work that would result in us being as the rest, or better stated, that we have to uphold what can quite easily be seen for what it really is. Certain facets which threaten through whatever ulterior agenda we can act upon, because we must, to preserve our safety and way of life.
We are fortunate in that our two societies, most especially here in the UK, because we hold within everything we are, this capacity for exploration and so, as a fundamental human right. Our transacting is not one of sameness / uniformity enforced upon us, it’s not that of someone else calling the shots, irrespective of how some do argue this point. I know and am not guilty of naiveté because I observe many other societies and the extent of our difference in this is at the extreme. In other words and it took a while to say it; we can contemplate what an amazing experience our heightened time truly is, and there is every encouragement so to do.
We do not tolerate the intolerant and this is our collective nature.
I’m collating info for us to discuss and should have it ready in about an hour. It’s related to this.
I have always been of the opinion and have to acknowledge that any assessment of the nature and content of a response to something stated, in whatever form the statement might be, in whatever function that statement might appear, is really very awkward. Obviously one can predict given certain target groups, because they are most familiar, but even then and especially in the present multi-cultural reality, it’s hardly surprising that any and all predictions are way off when they materialise.
There are ways of assessing the efficacy of an effort intended to influence people, but the nuts and bolts of the assessments are not that interesting and as I said, I don’t necessarily subscribe to them.
The way we present and the sheer extent of the emotive trauma caused is not typical at all so therefore responses are impossible to predict. What I’m saying is not exactly revelation, but what is completely unique has the potential to really drive home feelings that are not felt often if at all, these being as unique as the thing seen or read.
The ideal, the utopia, is that we aren’t losing against any propaganda effort directed at us, very specifically not to jihadists. The reasons being many though very because their basis has no appeal to us. How true is this? I mean who, what, where, when, how and importantly why is the opposite the case?
Generally speaking, what can and does have appeal to us and which we can machinate is contained within a wide societal framework of very particular associations, and we can talk about these.
There are varying degrees inherent within many things, complex issues involved. We can map them or try.
I also want to talk about living in fantasy, what is presented is not the panacea as some would or are made to assume. A life world covers a whole range of participatory activities, these encouraged of course, and there has to be awareness of what is most appropriate for the person concerned. It’s a very personal thing and to impregnate the whole scene with certain images intended to plug ideas and supplemental suggestions to back them up, mentors too, has to be examined. How a speaker appears is not necessarily bound up with how the speaker really is, as advertising, psych war, indoctrination, call it what you like tends to create an image of; “If you appear this way while doing this, just think how wonderful life will be.” It’s rubbish when untrue and most often it is untrue. It’s appealing to the base instinct, the quintessential, unchanging elemental that we introduced at the beginning.
I’d say in regard to living in fantasy, we have to be specific as to who and where. I’d say in ‘certain nations’ people are afraid of reality, fantasy is the mainstay. Fantasy space beings who dominate, supposed mentors peddling fantasy, the film industry engaging in fantasy, TV creating fantasy culture, it’s everywhere you look. Life worlds are the content of concocted dramas. Actions thereafter become based upon these. We must try and recognise them for what they really are.
So what is reality? It’s easier to state what it isn’t than what it is, but we can try.
Looking at it from what might be viewed as being irrelevant – which it isn’t, (always a good thing to do), a question that can be introduced is; what are the Arts and patronage thereof?
I think most would not grasp the meaning of the phrase ‘patronage of the Arts’ because they have never been introduced to the arts. Mainstream media addresses other facets of life, or should I say wraps up facets in the recognizable. What are the Arts, most would wonder and the issue that bothers you and me both, is the extent to which emotive expression has almost become defunct in favor of surface, choreographed rough-ride over atrocity, called drama.
I was using the example of jihad to illustrate how those who cannot grasp the significance of their ‘endowment’ are seduced. In this I can posit the fantasies already set up as meaningful, we need to look at ourselves. Ideas and relationships between them, of whatever attribution, are already in minds, so is the receptivity for atrocity and you pointed to video games and films as examples.
(C-V) So if a world view is made up of entrenched perceptions, these being felt certainties and expectations based upon them, it is therefore almost impossible to facilitate change?
If the young are never submit to critical thinking via an educational environment because the facilities hardly exist, then as adults you can’t realistically expect critical thinking to somehow remarkably appear?
Who is at fault, the person or the system?
What things are of value therefore – things that have no value whatsoever and are seen otherwise? A sad indictment on the lives of many.
One accusation which abounds is that we are imploding, is the fact that there is no cohesive element that binds society, rather, plenty that cannot bind it and these being lived out all of the time?
Are we trying to impose an elitist philosophy where it has about as much chance of success as that of winning the lottery?
(C-I) I would say there was no point, looking at it from that point of view. Nowhere is utopia, but we work hard to make it the next best thing. Implosion is an awkward concept because it depends on where you are looking at it from and the factors fraught with subjective views. often competing for legitimacy.
There’s a whole lot of reinforcement bound up with where instinctual desire finds outlet, the creating and maintaining of a social world, in the desire to effect control via viewing the value of something on a scale of its capability as a weapon. The latter seeming to denigrate what is not and in this category ironically, lives who owns the most power of all.
It’s truly a travesty of the era we are living in when notions of power are seen as being those of stealth – which has war as its ultimate end point. Any modern war, I refer to a war engaging the weapons that now dominate the arena, renders the whole conception of fighting as utterly meaningless because there would be only one instantaneous outcome. This does not negate the thrust toward aggression, as we do see. Though this is obvious, as I said, it won’t halt the impulse.
I was looking at those drawings you sent by the WWI artist and surgeon Henry Tonks. You’d assume justifiably (though very wrongly) that documenting the effects of aggression to this graphic extent would terminate in minds, the desire to effect such an outcome.
What bothers me is how any view that undermines the bravado ethos comes under attack. It’s easy to see this at work, for example; in de-feminizing, in the subordinating of emotion propagandized as essentially feminine being some kind of excess baggage to that of outward demonstrations of power (for example the driving of a fast and noisy car, the wearing of fatigues if not in the armed forces, men fighting while women wash the dishes).
We’ve discussed this before, that considerable power to control and to destroy even, resides within emotion, in what emotion can wield and this strikes terror into the whole thing. I can’t say much about this here, but if someone is going to be set up, compromised I mean, it’s done and very effectively via an assumed relationship and into which the one party becomes engulfed, destroyed completely if need be, however or whatever appeal is made to fight the effect. It makes no difference who or what the target professes to be.
When we take a glance around, outside of our protected and perfect sanctuary, there is a question that jumps back and which is; what point is there in bravado? You see this mostly in attacks on femininity which abound and which are typically aimed at men who are; predisposed to art, to certain colours, to wearing certain clothes, to having a certain hairstyle, to owning a certain type of vehicle, to speaking a certain way, to doing a job which does not necessitate bonding with other males, to men who write (literary, poetic works), to being a vegetarian, vegan, to those not drinking beer, to those who are body conscious, et cetera.
It’s interesting to me how testosterone is peddled all over the place along with pictures of hypothetical results (becoming muscular, thus being able to fight better, impress other men, to jump into battle in a fantasy, not reality) and the first thing that is prescribed for prostate enlargement is a testosterone inhibitor, very essentially though not described as being, a feminization process (the alternative is castration). Women need testosterone via junk food like we need arsenic.
In my opinion, though I’ve not studied it in any great depth because it’s depressing; with the onset of TV following the war, people just began being receptacles for ideas that are muck, whereas before there was more of the inner search, admiration often being engaged via literature and art especially. This, which I see as very evident because the evidence is here, was trampled upon by the pathetic onslaught which has resulted in what now abounds. A supposed good film is a film where more people are beaten to death, likely tortured first so to hold the indignity, the heroes are the obvious jerk. And it’s all so very synthetic, though pitifully seductive and marketable.
De-feminizing of women – if nothing else other than what presents in the moment has been known, then what can we expect? Mass produced junk called clothes, steroids that cause bodies to fill out leggings and size XXXL T-shirts? Noise coming from all directions telling to support this fantasy even if the end result is that women look like men as a result?
(C-V) Why not just say what you really think?
Are you of the opinion that mass communication in this time has been commandeered? The internet, apart from it requiring the exact same physical response, to a machine, do you think it can it be viewed as a facsimile of the human mind and its disorders and which those using it are susceptible? These disorders are human psycho-pathologies, its users in the first place or some, many. Is it possible to step beyond its thinking while using it?
Another way of seeing it is that the internet is an act of war (as you say, it is weaponized) and its adherents who can’t bear certain aspects of life that presents (that others present) are compelled to war against and in so doing precipitate a response in kind. Years ago before the internet and before TV, I suppose, this awareness did not exist in anything like the same extent and so can ask; what of peace of mind? A blissful UN-awareness.
(C-I) The whole thing is weaponized, if not overtly, the aggressive impulse is implanted at the outset. If it is coloured as being something else, it’s not long before the real thrust evolves if and when the requirement is there. You have to look at the extent to which the content of a person’s life world illustrates this. It’s not that rewarding an activity.
Some would refer to idealization of the female and see an issue with it wholly based on where they are coming from, the fact that such idealization is the very opposite of what they think it should be.
TV is different in that it’s indoctrination in one direction; you just watch pewk, whereas the internet is much worse because of the designs that can be built into interactions, designs being very careful and calculating in their grip of the psyche, depending on who is responsible for them.
You said “blissful unawareness” which I find awkward in that it is possible (absolutely) to remain psychologically intact, but we still have to be subject. We know about ourselves, who and what we are, there is nothing manipulative that can seep through our castle walls.
I like what you referred to as singularity, it’s from Derrida, part of our seminar prog. on self-awareness and control. When you consider all of the stuff that is accouterments and which forms the basis of outward character, what most actually see and react to, stripping this away completely, including the machine responses built into life these days, the result is interesting. “What am I really and if you could know, could you attribute value in the sense of value that is attributed to accouterments.? The answer is no, because I am not these, I am something else entirely. I don’t think many are capable of relating to in this way, it requires a plunge into a very personal space, a disregarding of societal, attributed synthetic values.
Looking at it from a different point of view, the question; “Who are we?” the answer is a fundamental axiom upon which everything stands. I am referring to esprit de corps – essential essence, and in this information war, it is absolutely necessary first to define ourselves and second to try and allow those within and without to see and feel it. This is both easy to do and not so easy for many to accept, even among those living here, though I think they should accept it. I am not referring to nationalism or patriotism per se, though these do form a composite part. It has to be felt not merely spoken about.
The accusatory response is usually along the lines of identifying qualities domicile elsewhere, and I have said that the reason for this is the information war which places our very selves under constant attack, eroding away what we have always been.
After the war and particularly when the TV began bombarding minds with hollow and meaningless propaganda, the notion of esprit de corps began to fragment and the result was that many never felt what their predecessors certainly did, by and large. It’s too easy to create exaggerated fantasy, in terms of people and ideas and these be taken up, the result being a nation consisting of a confusion of values and associations from all over the place.
I was watching a video report showing a group of people, mostly British by the way, laughing and jeering at one of the Household Cavalry on duty outside the Palace. The fact that they felt only amusement in tradition and all that is built into it is very alarming, a part of the world they dismiss as being funny compared to the world they think they are part of. What exactly is the world they think they are a part of?
(C-V) I would add that the treatment or maltreatment of women (though not confined to women) under the auspices of regimes which are exclusively male controlled is a central issue. I’m going to ask you a question and I know it will inflame you. Here it is; What of suffering censure for demanding equal rights?
(C-I) I know what you are alluding to. My hands are tied because of the requirement for political correctness.
All I can say in this particular respect is that there are very good reasons why we are eons better than the rest, was better, is better and always will be better. If I was treated in such a way, I wouldn’t show that it hurt and after, I would say, “Is that it? Is that all you can do, I was expecting more”
What is it that a question asks and where might an answer be coming from?
The reason – this is a good place to start is that making our assessments says a great deal about the person asking the question or indeed, if it is even understood let alone valued. As I’ve said before, when people are bombarded by information and in 3D format which is intended to reinforce what is never questioned by the people it is aimed at, which is most, there becomes a state of mind where to think questioningly requires thinking about oneself, because a collective sameness is the norm and this is not the person, it is something else.
Almost everything presented to the senses is someone else’s world view and has a motive as the main thrust, couple this with the propaganda that is intentionally destabilizing in nature, other countries aim this at the UK for reasons known to them, it becomes awkward for many to shake free, to identify and focus on what is meaningful. In this, lives the question how a person feels because it colors how others are seen.
We have evolved into a society that has shifted focus away from upon the person per se, simply because the person has delegated the authority, the control over to the wider collectivity. I’m referring to how what a person is supposed to think. It’s easy to see how this is manipulated especially with regard to what others want to sell and aggression for example, is a perfect illustration of this.
If you take a look at the propaganda around aggression it becomes obvious but not to those who are led into its prevaricating status, that this is a good thing, it brings this that and the other with it, a milieu of brightness even, cheer and so on. Whereas the truth is that it creates a clone like collective unable to question its premise and can’t obviously question its deleterious effects not just upon a person’s mental and physical status, but society as a whole.
Food is another example and worth mentioning because everyone has to eat, or so I assume. The kind of food I’m referring to is peddled in ways that are the very opposite of its actual benefit as food. Fast food junk is not the only culprit – the machine patterns of behaviour that are induced and valued by its participants / adherents.
We’ve come a long way in the UK with the honesty issue, that there are many ways to buy proper food, but the imported muck propaganda still abounds along with its lying visage aimed at everybody. I’m referring to the propaganda, according to some, there are millions starving here, which is so utterly not true as to be laughable.
A person in the first instance has to realize this status, that what others are saying is for their benefit alone and the stuff they are hawking is more often less good than that fed the dog. In addition the more that is paid the worse it becomes.
If a person does not step out of this syndrome and begin seeing others as victims, it’s unlikely there will be an inward process of self-evaluation.
We can talk about what self-evaluation entails because once it has begun, a whole new world is entered and a journey into a state of being so very different than what was discarded. Others might be viewed with disdain for their distance in this, but how important is that? The phony mentors who peddle ideas and with the intention of making clones in their image will be thrown in the dustbin along with their messages.
Look at the lengths the industry (poison food) reaches in order to protect itself – an issue for the person, because questioning the authenticity of habits, rituals and all that goes along with that, is difficult at first. It’s no different to the messages tendered so to seduce into debt and consequent enslavement. We can discuss that too because it’s impossible to feel human while completely owned by credit card companies and the like who were telling how wonderful life was going to be with the new car, gadget, gizmo, har, har. It’s not confined to such asymmetric intentions, it’s to put to fully fledged nuke war scenarios too.
In addition, there is the question emasculating others who might feel tempted to question what certain images and messages actually mean. They mean nothing whatsoever and form a part of much that is problematic. To pump images of bravado with statements pertaining to a certain outcome.
I also must place this in context and I did mention the efforts by foreign states to propaganda what is flagrantly not true. I’m acutely sensitive in this. The meaning of life here in the UK is illustrative of a rich picture of immeasurable beautiful content, within which the person can explore, it’s all here and this is the point, that the foreign states where this not the case and they know who they are, use ideas which are ridiculous in doing this. We don’t have to work until we are eighty years old, there are free courses of study on every subject and every level, there is monetary help with almost everything and health care is free. If you look at the states intent on undermining us, its rather obvious that the reverse is the case and more often than not the real issues are swept under the carpet in favour of more false propaganda aimed at their own. So context is important and the point being that it’s much easier here to begin or enhance personal awareness than it is elsewhere, though they would contest that, obviously.
(C-V) Excellent. I’m thinking that some might not see what we’re talking about as being a topic pertaining to intelligence but it is relevant. People make the ideas which become the reality which we see in the outer world of things, multifarious, multifaceted. I don’t want to get into jargon or to military tech. because it’s the inner journey of the person and collectives of people we’re focusing on. Do you agree?
(C-I) I agree to an extent, but what is the case now, I refer to the current global standoffs with their very unique danger – of all out catastrophe, usually involves a sweep across who has what and where it is situated. I am referring to military capability, its novel command and control – nuclear capability. So basically if I am going to be vaporized at some point in the near future it is fruitful to examine the psychological preconditions that precipitated that – which is what we are doing. No one can deny the sheer force of the compulsion to create death. I mean most live unawares but WMD are a very real dark cloud looming over all of the global population. The weapons did not create themselves. They were crated by people, compelled so to do, just as has always been the case.
(C-V) The inner journey and the conclusion of which is WMD. The human instinct that seizes any and all vehicles such that it manifests in the outer world of things?
(C-I) Basically, yes, as we said earlier. And on the subject of ‘one’s inner journey’, I think there’s a magic to be felt, when what is meaningless or is dangerous can be seen for what it is, whether partially or fully. Much is that way (meaningless and dangerous) and whether or not it has interests bound with, power, resource seizure, or profiteering as their reason is the issue. If citizens are socialized into a world of surface and immediate gratifications and these are filled with what has nothing of consequence, nothing of meaning – global war has no meaning in the sense that there would be anything meaningful as a consequence, how do you change this? Is it by providing exploration, or what?
What is it about ownership of items of value? Accouterments as we already said, is an appropriate word, ‘interests’ too. These are not the person or persons, but something that supports, and in this support frame is a perceived value of the person or persons, outwardly I mean, and a disinclination often never to encourage a reach to what lives within. You see this among collectivities, just by watching them and listening, as you know.
If we’ve become a clone collective I don’t think this can be changed, but on an individual level, when psychological health is an issue, or even continuation of the human species which obviously is bound with that status, it is arguably an important starting point. Psychological health, the continuation of peaceful time is about inner meaning that holds symbiotic associations; with what is possible, with what holds certain values (seemingly absent these days) at its core. Plenty does not accord with this, and by implication, nor does a citizen’s life world as a consequence.
Moving with the flow is the norm. How do you step away from this flow when it is seen as expectations being fulfilled?
How many question what is presented? Not so many because they are dissuaded from doing so via reinforcements which abound.
I agree, there are so many avenues of fulfillment to pursue in the UK, but are they seen as being such, is the issue. It’s likely that if the suggestion was tendered; I mean to explore our history and culture, it would be greeted by cynicism by many rather than enthusiasm, in favor of the TV, a computer game, immediate impact films, the latter crammed full of instinct to kill gone berserk. I know we’ve talked about this but in any change programme you have to examine how this manifests, as Brits becoming quasi American heroes.
To reject this and begin on a path of inner exploration is, I would say, a very difficult process because what is meaningful to most are associations that hit between the eyes and are constantly being reinforced. “I’m not myself but constituent parts of shoot em up types, pistol whipping hoodlums, guys who can fight, guns that never stop firing” All of this wrapped up in the real man thing. It’s all rather pathetic. There is insufficient patronage of the Arts, valuable knowledge is associated with the syndrome I just referred to, that of learning to shoot, of a mind that a powerful country can go push others around, and so on. Again, rather pathetic, pathological actually, instinct living itself out in the world better referred to as a global arena.
There’s a reality that bears no semblance to fantasy and this is very often swept under the carpet, especially where you are, dearest.
(C-I) Hi. It’s good to be switched on again. Here are a few thoughts, I haven’t time to finish, but can expand later.
It conjures an image of meaningless response to the world, the constituent of which is open three dimensional space, a blank, void of the qualities that can be responded to, and is a sad state of affairs. It is sad because there is an incongruence, an evolutionary capacity to create anything at all and whih conscious minds find solace in, while ignoring, consciously or unconsciously the only items that can be presented to the senses.
X cannot find sanctuary in sense data but finds it in creative use of language, analogies, that provoke pictures and meanings associated with them which do not exist.
X and Y engage in conflict over competing non-existing, products of the process of making analogies.
XY and Z disengage from the reality whereby sense data create the world via a relationship thereof and replace it either wholly or in part by an appeal to insubstantial projections – twist it around.
(C-V) Hey, you know, when you refer to a mind being an ‘open space’, ‘a void’, is it realistic to see it this way? The reason I ask is because it’s extreme, more likely that the contents of the mind are not valued by the carrier, and are easily displaced. I think this is simplifying a lot, but it’s necessary here to simplify.
What of the mind of X, as you describe, are there not methodologies at play that affect how X perceives – intentional methodologies containing messages intended to leave powerful meanings – whether we see these meanings as actually meaningful (we don’t) is not really the issue, is it?
Also, these messages are not always true, the meanings false, it’s the change of mind that is the desired result.
But I do see that if someone (X) is unable to reciprocate the multifaceted and complex arrangement of offerings inherent within its beauty and which the natural world presents to the senses, not even to acknowledge their existence let alone importance and dignity that should be accorded, to descend into a world of make-believe and then to assume that make believe is deserving of importance and dignity, then the precursor; void, empty space – has a great deal of weight.
So you are saying that the incapacity to empathise with the real world in favor of one residing in abstraction and which via the process of analogy has the attributes of the real world is pathological?
X takes a walk in the garden. X sees the garden, but attributes nothing by way of mental significance to it. X carries attributions of a non-reality instead, and where X assumes beauty resides? It appears pathological when it’s written down, but I have to ask ; what of approximations to this state of mind?
(C-I) What do you think of the following, it has relevance to what we said regarding mental states and receptivity to outward influence.
It’s regarding Wittgenstein’s Picture Theory of Language.
Wittgenstein’s philosophic investigations of language posit certain issues concerning the mind. The basic issue being that any form of application/status which asserts that mental states are anything other than connected to a person’s environment is false. For Wittgenstein, (Philosophical Investigations) they (mental states) are, because thought is inevitably tied to language, and language is inherently a social phenomenon. There is no ‘inner’ space in which thoughts can occur, they are all a part of the social world. Wittgenstein; “An ‘inner process’ stands in need of outward criteria.” This statement from his conclusions regarding private languages: similarly, a private mental state cannot be adequately discussed without public criteria for identifying it.
According to Wittgenstein, those who insist that consciousness (or any other apparently subjective mental state) is conceptually unconnected to the external world are very mistaken.
(C-V) Do let me think about that. It grasps at a huge significance with regard to the confrontational status of the world but precisely how I can’t elucidate to the extent it deserves. We have shifted the status of mental phenomena into the the domain of the outer world. Wasn’t Wittgenstein popular for saying something that on face value appears simplistic but is not, because the ramifications thereof are all encompassing?
(C-I) Don’t worry about it. I don’t agree with it’s axiom.
It has always been my thesis that you have to stress the aggressive impulse that resides within human nature. You have to ask the question; what is the aim of war? It is that wars cannot cease, irrespective of whatever intervention is applied, animosities do irreconcilably divide individuals and collectives and have done so throughout the history of which we are aware. We set moral standards, we live in a civilized collective of people and built into this is a renunciation of impulses, such that we are not supposed to cheat, be intolerant of differences or kill, because the state interferes. What you have to ask is not whether the state respects these, but whether it actually can respect them.
We’ve talked a lot about whether it is possible for the person in any nation to take delight in nature, to exist in an atmosphere of the untouched, the unchanged, the undamaged. What is the beautification of life?
I have to stress that we have achieved this while among the proclivities of other voices, while we engage in conflict and in war, while there is the resultant suffering and destruction that ensues. War is cruel, bitter and merciless and is applied through the condition of blind rage and tears apart all bonds, leaving bitterness in its wake. The state disallows the citizen to do wrong while at the same time monopolizes in war. The state demands the ultimate sacrifice of the citizen. I mean that the state forbids individual wrong and monopolizes it at the same time via every injustice and act of violence conceivable. This is where the consensus manipulation enters in, the state of obedience and sacrifice, while at the same time treats citizens as unthinking machines through excess of news propaganda and opinion. The latter rendering the citizen defenseless, quite literally.
I’ll continue this later; remember, men commit acts of brutality incompatible with the culture they are part of and the reason why demands much thought.
(C-I) We’ve certainly moved into a serious topic.
Here goes, tally ho:
Central, is the appeal to feeble minded abstractions, these, cloaked by the agendas of whoever among us is making the appeal. These allusions commend themselves among the angst that is part of living; the feeble moralities spawned also collide as is most obvious, just as always. The feeble minded and the supposed high moralities associated with these allusions give rise to the most brutal behaviours imaginable. This is irrefutable because it is the essence of that which would, if allowed, exterminate us and run amok unheeded.
We have to be aware of how we are in the cauldron of what is at stake.
As we have discussed previously, the deepest character of the human being consists of impulses that are elemental in kind, is the case in all beings, the aim of which is to satisfy certain very basic needs. These needs are classified by appeal to the elements which constitute the collectivity, whatever community. Throughout evolution these impulses have become inhibited, the reactions against these impulses give a most deceptive appearance; as if insensitivity has become sensitivity, brutality into sympathy, often paired together as intense adoration and intense despising existing in the same person.
If people are prepared to accept that we for example present the beautification of life in whatever capacity, then they will feel it apostate to their own nature.
This briefly is where we are and if you feel compelled to examine the strategies in place under the umbrella of psychological warfare, then you have to appreciate the standpoint not that it demands, but as being a tool to subvert and this tool understood by those who understand themselves. The subversion to which I am the architect, placed within other strategies, is for collective good because without its employment we would die, and it’s as simple as that.
We have to understand the reasons why life compels the way it does and by virtue of so doing, understand the nature of what is coming our way, much of which is obnoxious. We have to act accordingly so that our continuity, our culture, our time, is guaranteed. In the latter and most especially in the present time many people, naive, see a problem in this, but a better perception is necessity.
We can have fun by discussing the strategies employed by the many unscrupulous in which a condition of subservience, insecurity is engendered (or approximation thereof) and in so doing, the receptivity to whatever answer, idea or notion fed in is grasped for as if it were sugar cake. These are more of the commercial references than are military, but I began with the abstraction, the fabrication and the ridiculous non-reality that inflicts and to whose ‘’’ message’’’ multitudes do adhere. This adherence manifests as the control from a single source which is most evident.
(C-V) I was thinking how we’ve discussed the requirement to suspend all prejudgements and enter into the world of the other – to see things from a different point of view. However, and importantly when what is the case requires a whole different evaluation of the syndrome; psychopathic, malefactorious, morally reprehensible – when what faces is way beyond even those evaluations, this is not a fruitful or even a possible thing to do. I must say that engaging in that process is not to become like the other party, to join in or anything of the sort, it’s to enhance observation, aid in evaluation and assist a deeper and subsequent course of action. As you know.
(C-I) You have to ask the question; to what extent is it possible to do that when the group is hostile, or even on a superficial level, different. This is what we’ve discussed before – what happens when one does this, I mean, it’s not just about the circumstance as it presents, (using the skills that allow us), discovering its meaning to those within – but the effect of so doing upon you. We’re shifting off focus.
(C-V) It’s discovering a particular meaning of life which you wouldn’t really be able without immersing, without blending in.
Secret Intelligence Service
Room No. 15. Number I
ADVERSITATE. CUSTODI. PER VERUM