Just listened to this - thanks for the very interesting show guys! I just wanted to make two comments here:
First, about the interesting question Niall brought up: Could people who are not on the “truth frequency” tune into this “truth frequency” if, hypothetically, the PTB were broadcasting the truth on all channels? In other words, if truth was “official”, could they tune in?
I think yes, because what makes “truth seekers” different from “sheeps” in our world is the ability to go against authority in their thinking, to go against their “system 1”, or, as Dabrowski would say, take up a higher moral position and let it dominate their primitive impulses. So the question, I think, is not so much whether people can “tune in” the truth per se, but whether they can tune in the truth against the background of programming, against the background of “the easy way of the lie”. And this is precisely what is necessary for growth. In Gurdjieffs words:
So the question is: Are all or even most people able to grow, against the general law? In here I think Joe was right, that some people may be completely unable to do this, to tune in the “growth frequency”, so to speak. But they probably would accept the truth if it was "officially" proclaimed by their authorities - which wouldn't be "growth" per se of course.
The second comment is about Jonathan’s rant and the discussion about corrupted alternative journalists. I thought about this in connection with Naomi Klein, who wrote these brilliant books, and then completely lost it with her latest promotion of man-made climate change. And I asked myself, why such a skilled researcher can loose it so completely? The only answer I came up with is that unconsciously, she thought about her future, what it should look like, what she would like it to be – maybe she has financial obligations, “likes” certain things like speaking at big events etc. And she was faced with a (unconscious) choice: Does she write the truth about climate change, or for example a book telling the truth about Ukraine and the empire’s game there, which would likely mean she would loose her status as an “icon of the left” and be completely excluded from any mainstream media, and possibly “leftist” conventions, speaking opportunities etc., OR does she go in the opposite direction: writing a book about man-made climate change, which means she becomes fully accepted in the mainstream media, gets funds, can travel the world giving talks etc.? I think what Dabrowski said about courage applies here:
It seems she just doesn’t have the courage, and follows her “primitive urges” rather than a higher morality. And I suspect that this is how it goes for many of those alternative media people. One factor I think also plays a role here is the materialist philosophy/atheism that all those on the left political spectrum “inherited” from communism. There simply is no “higher perspective” which I think traditionally motivated people to work on themselves, develop their conscience and those virtues like courage Dabrowski talks about. But if there is no spiritual perspective, why bother? Even if, say, you are an intelligent observer with a conscience, who feels something is wrong, who feels for other people and starts to figure out some of what’s going on, why continue? If you only do this to “satisfy your conscience” and feel good, why not give it up and instead satisfy your hungers for power, money, admiration, sex, or other egoistic desires, whether consciously or not?
Of course, there is also the possibility of “plants” by the PTB, but that would be conspiracy theory :P
First, about the interesting question Niall brought up: Could people who are not on the “truth frequency” tune into this “truth frequency” if, hypothetically, the PTB were broadcasting the truth on all channels? In other words, if truth was “official”, could they tune in?
I think yes, because what makes “truth seekers” different from “sheeps” in our world is the ability to go against authority in their thinking, to go against their “system 1”, or, as Dabrowski would say, take up a higher moral position and let it dominate their primitive impulses. So the question, I think, is not so much whether people can “tune in” the truth per se, but whether they can tune in the truth against the background of programming, against the background of “the easy way of the lie”. And this is precisely what is necessary for growth. In Gurdjieffs words:
ISOTM said:"But, at the same time, possibilities of evolution exist, and they may be developed in separate individuals with the help of appropriate knowledge and methods. Such development can take place only in the interests of the man himself against, so to speak, the interests and forces of the planetary world. The man must understand this: his evolution is necessary only to himself. No one else is interested in it. And no one is obliged or intends to help him. On the contrary, the forces which oppose the evolution of large masses of humanity also oppose the evolution of individual men. A man must outwit them. And one man can outwit them, humanity cannot. You will understand later on that all these obstacles are very useful to a man; if they did not exist they would have to be created intentionally, because it is by overcoming obstacles that man develops those qualities he needs.
So the question is: Are all or even most people able to grow, against the general law? In here I think Joe was right, that some people may be completely unable to do this, to tune in the “growth frequency”, so to speak. But they probably would accept the truth if it was "officially" proclaimed by their authorities - which wouldn't be "growth" per se of course.
The second comment is about Jonathan’s rant and the discussion about corrupted alternative journalists. I thought about this in connection with Naomi Klein, who wrote these brilliant books, and then completely lost it with her latest promotion of man-made climate change. And I asked myself, why such a skilled researcher can loose it so completely? The only answer I came up with is that unconsciously, she thought about her future, what it should look like, what she would like it to be – maybe she has financial obligations, “likes” certain things like speaking at big events etc. And she was faced with a (unconscious) choice: Does she write the truth about climate change, or for example a book telling the truth about Ukraine and the empire’s game there, which would likely mean she would loose her status as an “icon of the left” and be completely excluded from any mainstream media, and possibly “leftist” conventions, speaking opportunities etc., OR does she go in the opposite direction: writing a book about man-made climate change, which means she becomes fully accepted in the mainstream media, gets funds, can travel the world giving talks etc.? I think what Dabrowski said about courage applies here:
Personality Shaping said:Courage
There is much controversy among thinkers about the conception of courage. One must distinguish very clearly the capacity for action, daring, aggressiveness, and speedy reaction to various stimuli, from true courage. For such traits may be the functions of primitive drives, of the fighting, possessive, or sexual instincts. Therefore we should distinguish various levels in the attitude of dynamism, energy, powerful striving, “strong character,” and so on. The lower levels of courage may be characterized by a lack of thought about the sense of one’s action, a lack of apprehension that one may possibly do wrong to other people, and an improper estimation of danger, or a lack of moderation. We should clearly distinguish, therefore, pseudo coinage from true courage. Many people who fought with courage in the war and who are bold and uncompromising in dealing with people and matters in their everyday life, belong to a category of men aggressive by nature, often displaying a tendency for bursting out in anger, and sometimes even for pronounced cruelty. Their courage is one of the primitive forms of the fighting instinct or may be an indication of sexual perversion. Besides, pseudo courage may indicate an improper estimation of the situation (belief that the other side is weaker).
Only a man who, conscious of the danger threatening him and of the changeability of fortune, of the consequences which his attitude may bring him, such as the loss of esteem, position, influence, decides, being true to his ideal, to take up a given action is truly courageous. True courage, and more so true heroism, have their foundations in experiences gained over a period of many years or even through one’s whole life, during which has taken place a slow process of harmonization of the impulsive forces with personality dynamisms, the latter formed from one’s experiences of life, in which suprapersonal, suprabiological tendencies play an increasingly more important part.
It seems she just doesn’t have the courage, and follows her “primitive urges” rather than a higher morality. And I suspect that this is how it goes for many of those alternative media people. One factor I think also plays a role here is the materialist philosophy/atheism that all those on the left political spectrum “inherited” from communism. There simply is no “higher perspective” which I think traditionally motivated people to work on themselves, develop their conscience and those virtues like courage Dabrowski talks about. But if there is no spiritual perspective, why bother? Even if, say, you are an intelligent observer with a conscience, who feels something is wrong, who feels for other people and starts to figure out some of what’s going on, why continue? If you only do this to “satisfy your conscience” and feel good, why not give it up and instead satisfy your hungers for power, money, admiration, sex, or other egoistic desires, whether consciously or not?
Of course, there is also the possibility of “plants” by the PTB, but that would be conspiracy theory :P