Enforcement of VAX escalating

[Tauriel]

Here's another question - for those highly opposed to getting the jab despite anything, does it feel like being jabbed by an mRNA jab, possibly repeatedly at the States determination is akin to getting "raped"?

So you are equating rape with getting the jab?
Why would you want to do that?

The jab I can see coming and I can prepare accordingly and choose freely how to react or counteract.
Some rape victims see it coming because it happens repeatedly and still don't know how to defend themselves.
Others never see it coming because it happens out of the blue.

I will go to great length to avoid the shot. And if no longer possible I have some great weapons at hand.
I would go to greater length to defend myself against being raped.
And I definitely would not want these 2 things living side by side in my head as one and the same thing.

 

[SOTTREADER]

So you are equating rape with getting the jab?
Why would you want to do that?

The jab I can see coming and I can prepare accordingly and choose freely how to react or counteract.
Some rape victims see it coming because it happens repeatedly and still don't know how to defend themselves.
Others never see it coming because it happens out of the blue.

I will go to great length to avoid the shot. And if no longer possible I have some great weapons at hand.
I would go to greater length to defend myself against being raped.
And I definitely would not want these 2 things living side by side in my head as one and the same thing.

But isn't the perception of the dynamics a subjective thing? Doesn't it come down to how a person feels? If someone really doesn't want to be subjected to the jab and if in doing so they are plunged into an abyss of darkness, how can someone else say that isn't rape? Some people see it that strongly and how can other people say they are wrong? I used the word rape because the same dynamics are in play as outlined in my bullet points. The same reflexes will be initiated within people who are sensitised to these things i.e. their sense of self is anchored around maintaining a secure sense of self that isn't violated by the "other". Not everyone is the same but some people will react very badly to being transgressed against to the point where life will be meaningless to them.

To clarify, what I mean to say is these people will resist to the end and if they are overpowered and subdued, they will probably break and the world will likely become this thing that they will eventually have to get even with.

 

[LQB]

Some here have mentioned people getting the vaccine so they can continue to care for their family. In my case, I need to stay unvaccinated and healthy so I can help care for my vaccine injured family members. So that is the other side of this.

All situations are different just like the individuals. I agree with your sentiment, and I would hope that most folks that make that hard internal decision to take the jab, do so to gain the time needed to adjust their situation accordingly - none of this should have come as a sudden surprise to anyone here.

 

[Tauriel]

But isn't the perception of the dynamics a subjective thing? Doesn't it come down to how a person feels?

Absolutely.

Some people see it that strongly and how can other people say they are wrong?

I'm not saying that you are wrong, I just don't understand why you torture yourself like this. This is what it would be for me. A tortureous thought and emotion I would try to look at and heal.

Not everyone is the same but some people will react very badly to being transgressed against to the point where life will be meaningless to them.

That's a choice as well. Maybe you will find out how it would feel although I don't wish this to anybody.

My point was that this you can see coming and thus you can prepare.
I wouldn't wait to be raped if I saw it coming.

 

[siftingmaterials]

@siftingmaterials I have a few things to say as now I can see where we are starting to diverge

First of all, I just have to thank you again for being a PRETTY COOL PERSON to have an exchange with. I find your approach both curious and demanding, which is a pretty good start to something resembling dialogue (which is to say, a remedy to rhetoric designed to convert rather than learn from).

Do you think there is such a thing as an objective truth say on a single subject and do you think we as individuals can uncover that truth?

Do I think that? Buddy, put the coffee on and pull up a chair. Here we go.

I know you've interpreted me as an over-complicated thinker, but I'll say that when we're talking about ontological frameworks (when we're talking about what's-actually-out-there and what's-really-happening) our approach is everything. English is a brand new language that formed around Anglo-Norman colonization and was adapted over time to facilitate a societal and economic transition from tribalism to feudalism and finally industrialism, so we have to respect the fact that the words we use largely have their basis in a project of reconciling a rapidly shifting understanding of the material and immaterial world. It wasn't designed to deconstruct these notions and get at what's true or real, it was adapted haphazardly to move the process along in a way that doesn't end in execution, imprisonment or torture. It's a coerced language, not a language resting on thousands of years of inherited traditional knowledge. There's a reason J. Robert Oppenheimer refused to teach texts that had been translated into English, preferring to wait for his students to learn the original languages, or why other physicists who worked at the edge of reason relied so heavily on Sanskrit and ancient Greek. I'm not like that, so, I mean, I think I deserve a little credit here. That said, it's important to me that I go through this carefully because I have a tendency to use this tortured language lazily. I have to try, right? I beg for your patience!

So do I think that there is such a thing as an objective truth? We're talking about the overlap of something that is both objective and true? Yeah, I think something like that can be the case. We'll get into how and why in a second here. I think the process of answering that question is far more complex if you want to say that truth and objectivity are the same thing. It's almost an entirely different line of inquiry. So I guess I have to ask you, and this is a big ask: Can you be more specific than "subject"?

When you ask me if I expect an objective truth to be at the root of a given subject, my intuition says that a given subject is or isn't the case. I call that objective. Does that make sense? Movies are factual. Who would argue? They exist. Sure they do! Does that meet your criteria for "objective?" In this case, it meets mine. Especially if I wanna go watch one. We watch 'em, we love 'em. That's the truth. Did Apocalypse Now happen? No, that movie represents a counter-factual case. It's an interesting alternative to what actually happened. Okay, so I must think something did happen, right? Something happened in Vietnam in the 1960s. I'm trying to build some trust with you, here. I'm employing several ontic terms as I go and I'll list them out:

• "is"
• "are"
• "actual"
• "real"
• "objective"
• "exists"

I think we're one or two exchanges away from getting at why it's important to list these terms, but here they are for the sake of reference. So when I tell you that I think about objectivity, in the sense of something being real, you now know that I do and you have some understanding of what I mean when I say that I do. Surely, something is. Surely. Surely, something exists and is actual. Surely, the mind is embroiled with and entangled by "the real," whatever it is.

And yes. We, as individuals, have a capacity for uncovering what is the case if the subject is receptive to ontological or epistemological inquiry. So we need to be clearer than "subject" if we want to strength test this idea of objective truth and whether or not there is any objectivity behind what seems to be the case. So please, let's get specific.

E.g. is the Earth objectively a sort of sphere or is it what an individual decides it is? The answer to this question can have real consequences say to my ability to navigate the planet or to understand how it's positioned in relation to the wider solar system or indeed to decide whether a wider solar system exists or not etc.

Yeah, I'm with you on that. The questioner has to judge if the Earth is a composite of its mineral matter, for example, or if the oceans count. I'll call that 'criteria'. You'd never call it a sphere if its oceans were discounted. But if you drained the Earth's oceans and watched it spin for a billion years you might arrive at the observation that some astral bodies in the milky way galaxy often assume the shape of spheres because of the way matter gets on with the physics of that galaxy. The earth would then be becoming spherical, but maybe at that point it would be more meaningful for the questioner to note that the conditions around the body are what's really at play. So I'm saying maybe time alone, and not a change of the state of reality, would alter the questioner's perception significantly. To the point of a methodological shift in approaching the question, even.

And as observers of the example we get to ask ourselves whether this questioner has to settle on one description over another. Is it because we care about the truth? We'd rather the questioner settle on one over multiple answers, maybe? That seems to get back to purpose somehow. What's the purpose? And does purpose connect intrinsically with what exists, with what's objectively there?

I think it's important to outline that whether something is understandable and whether something is extant - these are two discrete lines of inquiry. But maybe we'll find that these things do, actually, overlap quite often. Who knows?

Let's take these vaccines, someone somewhere is selling me these vaccines. They are telling me I need it because there's a pandemic. This choice has real consequences to me. I have to make a choice whether to take it or not. I'm interested to know what is in the vaccine, are the people who made it competent, what is the risk profile etc. These are questions with objective answers. The answers exist independently. Can I trust the mainstream media to tell me the truth on this subject? Again, the answer to this is an objective one, it exists independently.

I sympathise.

How do I as an individual find out the answers?

Answers. Answers. Okay. Oh, it's you! So in this case you're both the questioner and the observer of the example (along with me!). So you have questions and you are certain your questions have answers. Forgive me for being esoteric, but questions are a bit like incantations, don't you agree? If you ask a different question, you get a different answer. That's kind of crazy, actually... Get an answer... Change the question, then... change the answer... Wait, what were we talking about? Hang on.

Answers exist independently from questions, so you say. No, I don't think I can swing that.

It's the question that determines the answer. Things out there *gesticulates wildly* are the case and an investigation into what is the case requires some level of observation that isn't contingent on expectation. Questions sometimes yield answers. What does dispassionate observation yield?

What do you think dispassionate observation yields if there's no question? That's my second request of you, in the form of a question.

"What's in the vaccine?"
I think there's an objective answer to a question like this. It requires relatively little of the questioner. Forget for a moment that there are levels of specificity to the answer that would probably blow our minds, but I need to extend some good faith here and say that yes - especially when the questioner has the context of, like, ingredients on cereal boxes to go on. There's actually a reasonable expectation that questions like this have answers and our culture has worked hard to produce a context that delivers. "What's in the vaccine." Yeah! It goes in our body. We'd like to know. Understanding the material composition of vaccines is quite purposeful because it can keep us safer. Faith in humanity restored.

"Are the people who made it competent?"
That's a really hard question to answer objectively because the questioner hasn't presented their criteria for competency. The question demands big labour from the questioner. The questioner has to judge the answer. See? If the questioner wants an objective answer, they have to somehow ask this question differently. So I'll say that this is a good example of how not all questions have objective answers.

Essentially from what you've written I can't see that you think a person can come to know something objectively. I think this is one of the shortfalls of an approach that's too esoteric or too relativistic.

I'd love to learn your explanation for how a person can come to know something objectively. I hope by now you'd see that I have a pretty fair approach to the concept of objectivity and truth, but maybe not. Maybe we'll have to go back and forth a bit before you'll grant me that. But yes, this is my third request of you.

Another thing to mention - just because a human is a limited Being doesn't make them helpless to understanding objective truth or developing an appreciation for it. I'm a consumer of everything starting with my senses so the word itself shouldn't necessarily carry a negative connotation. Each on its own is limited but all working together in an integrated fashion allows me to navigate the world quite safely - at least safely enough to keep me alive for a decent period of time. I avoid the cliff because I can see the drop, I sense there's an animal near-by because I can see a silhouette and hear some movement etc. I'm interested in navigation and making choices that are conducive to my health and safety within that space. Relativistic and esoteric stuff are okay up to a point but if I sense a lion nearby I can't sit around contemplating too long, I have to make a choice. Hope that made sense.

I'll let this statement stand on its own. You sense the cliff and you have some idea that it's there. It even is there (ontic term. don't you trust me??).

See? Nothing too weird, here. I'm not employing any extraneous or magical thinking. I'm only going through things slowly while being as mindful as I can be about how a questioner interrogating the world might arrive at answers that are more, or less, objective.

Okay, that's enough for now.

 

[Natus Videre]

Rising Action: The chain of events become more complex. The actions and feelings of the characters intensify as their problems become more complicated.

Tension is building up. Choices bear more weight. Take a moment to reflect on the last 309 000 years of soul advancement. Isn't it fascinating that the show has yet to begin?

Guests are lining up. A woman in a red dress is scanning tickets. A man is rearranging furniture on the scene. Kids are jumping around. The front rows are slowly getting filled. Adjustments are being made to the lighting system. A sound test sends shivers down an old man's spine.

But the show cannot begin until all guests are seated.

"Director, I'm tired of waiting. Can you start the show?" says a man in the front row.

The Director grabs a pen and adds "Anticipation" to the list of adverse effects.

 

[aragorn]

It is not necessary nor advisable to "explain away" any of the above findings. Everyone who carefully examines the data here can agree that people are indeed dying from the vaccine. Likewise, many are also suffering extreme side effects and some permanent disability. This point is not disputed. If the C's transmissions are anything to go by, it is also likely that experiments are being performed through certain batches with potentially novel technology.

However: Just doing the simple math, it is obvious at this point that deaths and side effects are statistically rare. Yes, they are significantly higher than any other vaccine or medication. But even then, the proportion of two billion people still counts as a small minority. If the vaccines were designed as a "tool of depopulation", as many in the alternative space claim, then it has not been very effective thus far!

No one is claiming in black-and-white terms that the vaccines are innocuous. Many of us here, myself included, will be doing our best to avoid taking this vaccine and recommend that others also do the same. But statistically speaking, if one was forced to get the vaccination for whatever reason... the chances of immediate death or injury are low. This is especially true for those who take the necessary precautions both on a physical & psycho-emotional level (think "spiritual hygeine") as the C's alluded to.

Holding two pieces of seemingly conflicting data in one's mind at once can be difficult for many. It actually takes effort and work to resist the temptation to side with one "camp" (1. that vaccines are innocuous, or 2. that vaccines will cause certain death). Both imply lazy thinking. The truth actually sits somewhere in between, but in actual fact, is more heavily weighted towards being somewhat safe (at least in the short-term).

Since we are in the business of trying to remain as close to objective reality as possible, it is important not to allow our emotions to override our analytical capabilities. We need to be prepared to continuously change our position through carefully parsing through the available data as it comes out in real time.

Well said!

As I've been mulling over this topic for quite some time, I've come to similar conclusions. The whole thing is multifaceted, and as you say, the reality is not black and white. If there's a genocidal agenda, at least we're not seeing it yet. That is not to deny that there is a number of really sick/evil/psychopathic individuals in this saga, like Fauci, who knowingly have caused the unnecessary death of thousands (maybe millions) of people by denying/suppressing alternative forms of treatment and medication and by ordering protocols of dangerous/wrong procedures like ventilation and routine administering of very harmful medication like Remdesivir. And who knows how many unnecessary deaths were caused by the lockdowns, scare tactics and bullying.

Regarding the dangers of the vaccines, I have to say that I haven't heard of anyone of the people I know suddenly dying or developing a serious chronic condition since the vaccines were introduced (I'm supposing that a large majority of peeps I know are 'double jabbed'). My mother developed a sinus arrhythmia a couple of months after her second dose, but it's difficult to prove that it was because of the jab. My wife experienced a quite scary form of heart palpitations the night after her second jab (which makes her not want to take any boosters), but after that she hasn't had any problems that I know of. And the thing about jabbed peeps 'losing their souls' or becoming different in their behavior – I have to say that I haven't witnessed any of that, either.

However, as a teacher at a university, I interact with over one hundred students regularly – one thing I have noticed is that the frequency of students being absent because of 'having a bad flu' or other health problems is higher than previous years. This could maybe be a case of confirmation bias by me, but as some of the students are openly talking about unusual patterns of repeated and, in some cases, chronic flu-like illness I do think that there's something to it. Again, it's hard to say if this is because they've been jabbed with the Covid vaccines or if this is the result of the long intervals of lockdowns, fear and isolation from the past two years. At the very least, the Covid vaccines haven't boosted their general immunity in any way. To a large extent, I do find the theories by Geert van den Bosche credible, so there is the, at least moderately high, possibility that this 'vaccine enhanced immune deficiency' will become more prominent in the upcoming months...we'll see.

I have to admit that during the time when the vaccines were introduced, I was 'taken in' by some of the more serious scare mongering that some the alternative media figures were producing. In retrospect, it wasn't helpful that e.g. Mike Yeadon was talking about how "the only conclusion he can make is that there's a genocidal agenda with the vaccines" and Mikovits was saying that "millions will die because of the vaccines". Some constantly talk about 'death jabs' etc. I think that many of these alternative voices (maybe not Mikovits) like Yeadon are, in a sense, 'newbies' when it comes to seeing the ugly and more objective reality, and so they 'run with it'. I think that many of us (myself included) have in the beginning stages of our 'awakening' experienced that urge to 'warn others', 'share what we know', 'trying to convert others' and, maybe most importantly, thinking that 'everything is a conspiracy'.

Having said all that, I still am very much against the vaccines mainly because the whole thing is a deception and a lie, and from that perspective the whole thing (the alleged danger of Covid included), indeed, a conspiracy. Right now the main agenda seems to be to make/force the covid passports universal and ubiquitous and to make the jabs annual. That's serious deception, exploitation and manipulation of people's minds, and a deceptive way of taking away people's freedoms = in my book that's not good, it's evil! So, I do want to make this enforcement as difficult for them as I can (in my little way) by refusing the vaccines and passports as long as it is possible without putting my family or myself at serious risk (like being incarcerated, losing my income/job or something).

There are still many open questions regarding the long term effects of these jabs, and I'm hoping that by stalling the, almost inevitable, jabbing something will soon come up that will destroy the whole narrative. On the other hand, I suspect that in some cases the opposition of vaccines and scary findings of their effects (and what's in them) might be allowed by TPB because it creates more tension and fear (among those refusing the vaccines) – and since those 'refusenicks' are vehemently against the jabs, that then gives a casus belli for making vaccines mandatory for everyone! For instance, I find it surprising that Robert Malone is still allowed on Twitter. One would think that he would be suspended and blocked as many others saying the same things as he is.

 

[Nathancat7]

I find the bit I was talking about.

Q: (L) So, you are saying that if we do what we do because we
enjoy it that we will be in the right place at the right
time, doing the right thing when whatever happens happens,
right?
A: Close.
Q: (L) Are you saying that we will be led to do what we
should be doing and be where we should be?
A: You will just fall into it but if you force things you run
the risk of going astray.

So whatever might happen we will deal with it as best as we could.

I had the most horrific experience at work I don't want to get too much into it but the boss decided to give Coke the big contract and Coke is all about reset which is just another word for consolidation and monopolies.
they turned my store upside down in the inventory was all over the place and it was just a nightmare I work 12 hours on Friday turn on Saturday and it just seems like the world's going crazy
But I just told her bought into it I guess I tried to force things and I succeeded actually I completely handled all the things that came and all that disorganization all the inventory organized everything and it was just a nightmare and it was.
Exhausting.
But I did it
But at what cost I mean who are these employee or is that are counting on me to do all these things why do I have to take on the responsibility to make everything right in a place.
I wasn't able to do the things I enjoy doing and I found myself getting more and more tired until I rallied and dug down deep and made it right at work.
So things will get easier now and that's what I was sort of aiming for.
but the thing is with the state of society to send a greeting it's just going to get worse and worse and I really think I made a mistake and in a sense because I bought into the whole thing trying to maintain status quo
And it just can't be done in the long run.
Whatever happens I'm going to make sure that I'm going to be doing the things that I'm interested in and that fill my soul and my heart and allow me to spend time and grow with the people that I care about--which is the people here.

 

[luc]

However, as a teacher at a university, I interact with over one hundred students regularly – one thing I have noticed is that the frequency of students being absent because of 'having a bad flu' or other health problems is higher than previous years. This could maybe be a case of confirmation bias by me, but as some of the students are openly talking about unusual patterns of repeated and, in some cases, chronic flu-like illness I do think that there's something to it.

It's funny because I observed the same thing among work contacts and came to the same conclusions.

Until I developed the exact same thing: Two major cold spells this year that knocked me out for a few days, plus some chronic symptoms showing up every now and then. Highly unusual for me. Goes to show IMO that we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly. The vax might be a factor for the vaxed, but maybe it's just the flu's revenge for being ridiculed and sidelined last year LOL.

Great post btw Aragorn!

Edit: another throry could be that immunity is weakened in the general population due to the vax, the lockdowns and the psychological stress, and that makes it easier for some bad strains to get a foothold...

 

[luc]

My question to @luc (we don't disagree on anything btw ), @Joe etc is when does standing up for dignity outweigh the fear of job loss, imprisonment or dying?

When someone in his or her specific situation listens to their conscience and healthy instincts while keeping the facts in mind and keepin a cool head and then acts in accordance with Providence

 

[Konstantin]

However, as a teacher at a university, I interact with over one hundred students regularly – one thing I have noticed is that the frequency of students being absent because of 'having a bad flu' or other health problems is higher than previous years. This could maybe be a case of confirmation bias by me, but as some of the students are openly talking about unusual patterns of repeated and, in some cases, chronic flu-like illness I do think that there's something to it. Again, it's hard to say if this is because they've been jabbed with the Covid vaccines or if this is the result of the long intervals of lockdowns, fear and isolation from the past two years. At the very least, the Covid vaccines haven't boosted their general immunity in any way. To a large extent, I do find the theories by Geert van den Bosche credible, so there is the, at least moderately high, possibility that this 'vaccine enhanced immune deficiency' will become more prominent in the upcoming months...we'll see.

It's funny because I observed the same thing among work contacts and came to the same conclusions.

Until I developed the exact same thing: Two major cold spells this year that knocked me out for a few days, plus some chronic symptoms showing up every now and then. Highly unusual for me. Goes to show IMO that we shouldn't jump to conclusions too quickly. The vax might be a factor for the vaxed, but maybe it's just the flu's revenge for being ridiculed and sidelined last year LOL.

Same here. I also had 2 unusual flue like episodes in the last 6-7 weeks. Since a little kid I was always a flu magnet.
My point is that I know pretty well how flue symptoms are and how log they last , but the last two episodes were very unusual.
Other people that I know also have similar problem. The most characteristic was the strong headache, stuffy chest and sinuses and no increased body temperature or runny nose.
Something is going on.

 

[SOTTREADER]

First of all, I just have to thank you again for being a PRETTY COOL PERSON to have an exchange with. I find your approach both curious and demanding, which is a pretty good start to something resembling dialogue (which is to say, a remedy to rhetoric designed to convert rather than learn from).


Do I think that? Buddy, put the coffee on and pull up a chair. Here we go.

I know you've interpreted me as an over-complicated thinker, but I'll say that when we're talking about ontological frameworks (when we're talking about what's-actually-out-there and what's-really-happening) our approach is everything. English is a brand new language that formed around Anglo-Norman colonization and was adapted over time to facilitate a societal and economic transition from tribalism to feudalism and finally industrialism, so we have to respect the fact that the words we use largely have their basis in a project of reconciling a rapidly shifting understanding of the material and immaterial world. It wasn't designed to deconstruct these notions and get at what's true or real, it was adapted haphazardly to move the process along in a way that doesn't end in execution, imprisonment or torture. It's a coerced language, not a language resting on thousands of years of inherited traditional knowledge. There's a reason J. Robert Oppenheimer refused to teach texts that had been translated into English, preferring to wait for his students to learn the original languages, or why other physicists who worked at the edge of reason relied so heavily on Sanskrit and ancient Greek. I'm not like that, so, I mean, I think I deserve a little credit here. That said, it's important to me that I go through this carefully because I have a tendency to use this tortured language lazily. I have to try, right? I beg for your patience!

So do I think that there is such a thing as an objective truth? We're talking about the overlap of something that is both objective and true? Yeah, I think something like that can be the case. We'll get into how and why in a second here. I think the process of answering that question is far more complex if you want to say that truth and objectivity are the same thing. It's almost an entirely different line of inquiry. So I guess I have to ask you, and this is a big ask: Can you be more specific than "subject"?

When you ask me if I expect an objective truth to be at the root of a given subject, my intuition says that a given subject is or isn't the case. I call that objective. Does that make sense? Movies are factual. Who would argue? They exist. Sure they do! Does that meet your criteria for "objective?" In this case, it meets mine. Especially if I wanna go watch one. We watch 'em, we love 'em. That's the truth. Did Apocalypse Now happen? No, that movie represents a counter-factual case. It's an interesting alternative to what actually happened. Okay, so I must think something did happen, right? Something happened in Vietnam in the 1960s. I'm trying to build some trust with you, here. I'm employing several ontic terms as I go and I'll list them out:

• "is"
• "are"
• "actual"
• "real"
• "objective"
• "exists"

I think we're one or two exchanges away from getting at why it's important to list these terms, but here they are for the sake of reference. So when I tell you that I think about objectivity, in the sense of something being real, you now know that I do and you have some understanding of what I mean when I say that I do. Surely, something is. Surely. Surely, something exists and is actual. Surely, the mind is embroiled with and entangled by "the real," whatever it is.

And yes. We, as individuals, have a capacity for uncovering what is the case if the subject is receptive to ontological or epistemological inquiry. So we need to be clearer than "subject" if we want to strength test this idea of objective truth and whether or not there is any objectivity behind what seems to be the case. So please, let's get specific.


Yeah, I'm with you on that. The questioner has to judge if the Earth is a composite of its mineral matter, for example, or if the oceans count. I'll call that 'criteria'. You'd never call it a sphere if its oceans were discounted. But if you drained the Earth's oceans and watched it spin for a billion years you might arrive at the observation that some astral bodies in the milky way galaxy often assume the shape of spheres because of the way matter gets on with the physics of that galaxy. The earth would then be becoming spherical, but maybe at that point it would be more meaningful for the questioner to note that the conditions around the body are what's really at play. So I'm saying maybe time alone, and not a change of the state of reality, would alter the questioner's perception significantly. To the point of a methodological shift in approaching the question, even.

And as observers of the example we get to ask ourselves whether this questioner has to settle on one description over another. Is it because we care about the truth? We'd rather the questioner settle on one over multiple answers, maybe? That seems to get back to purpose somehow. What's the purpose? And does purpose connect intrinsically with what exists, with what's objectively there?

I think it's important to outline that whether something is understandable and whether something is extant - these are two discrete lines of inquiry. But maybe we'll find that these things do, actually, overlap quite often. Who knows?


I sympathise.


Answers. Answers. Okay. Oh, it's you! So in this case you're both the questioner and the observer of the example (along with me!). So you have questions and you are certain your questions have answers. Forgive me for being esoteric, but questions are a bit like incantations, don't you agree? If you ask a different question, you get a different answer. That's kind of crazy, actually... Get an answer... Change the question, then... change the answer... Wait, what were we talking about? Hang on.

Answers exist independently from questions, so you say. No, I don't think I can swing that.

It's the question that determines the answer. Things out there *gesticulates wildly* are the case and an investigation into what is the case requires some level of observation that isn't contingent on expectation. Questions sometimes yield answers. What does dispassionate observation yield?

What do you think dispassionate observation yields if there's no question? That's my second request of you, in the form of a question.

"What's in the vaccine?"
I think there's an objective answer to a question like this. It requires relatively little of the questioner. Forget for a moment that there are levels of specificity to the answer that would probably blow our minds, but I need to extend some good faith here and say that yes - especially when the questioner has the context of, like, ingredients on cereal boxes to go on. There's actually a reasonable expectation that questions like this have answers and our culture has worked hard to produce a context that delivers. "What's in the vaccine." Yeah! It goes in our body. We'd like to know. Understanding the material composition of vaccines is quite purposeful because it can keep us safer. Faith in humanity restored.

"Are the people who made it competent?"
That's a really hard question to answer objectively because the questioner hasn't presented their criteria for competency. The question demands big labour from the questioner. The questioner has to judge the answer. See? If the questioner wants an objective answer, they have to somehow ask this question differently. So I'll say that this is a good example of how not all questions have objective answers.


I'd love to learn your explanation for how a person can come to know something objectively. I hope by now you'd see that I have a pretty fair approach to the concept of objectivity and truth, but maybe not. Maybe we'll have to go back and forth a bit before you'll grant me that. But yes, this is my third request of you.


I'll let this statement stand on its own. You sense the cliff and you have some idea that it's there. It even is there (ontic term. don't you trust me??).

See? Nothing too weird, here. I'm not employing any extraneous or magical thinking. I'm only going through things slowly while being as mindful as I can be about how a questioner interrogating the world might arrive at answers that are more, or less, objective.

Okay, that's enough for now.

I'd dread being the stranger on a train who sits next to you and asks a question... that'll be a journey that I did bargain for

What I will say is your style of thinking and communicating is VERY similar to a user who is long gone, don't know if others may remember him, Buddy (or Bud). He spoke very much like you do. I always wondered where he went to.

To me, that's certainly an eloquent address to the world about the personal effects of it's own complexity on you. Complexity, that is, in terms of repetition, redundancy and the repeating behaviors of some of the people around us. Why can't reality just be simple, elegant and original in every instance? I know the feeling well. It can be mind-numbing, even painful, to sensitive people who can see stuff like this.

I don't know that there's a universal answer that suits everyone and helps ease the frustration, but it helps me sometimes to get 'underneath' the class view of things. By 'underneath', I mean temporarily setting aside that level of perspective that sees classes of thought, classes of people, classes of behaviors, classes, classes and more classes of nothing but repeating patterns.

It's like looking at a forest from the 'class' perspective. You see so many trees. Tree after tree after tree and it's all so boring and you wonder when all these trees will get out of the way so you can exit the forest into a beautiful meadow.

We may not realize it but we are partly responsible for this effect on us. We get stuck in our own mental constructions sometimes and fail to notice that 'tree' is just a class name. What's actually there are instances of individuals, each somehow similar to, and yet different from, each other and none of which has an individual name - only a class name. And that can be a problem because it seems to give us the ability to ignore or overlook important subtleties; to refer to, and treat, individuals as if they are disposable on a whim. After all, people, behaviors, individuals in a forest are just a class, right? And there's plenty in that class, so no particular one is so important, right?

Well, this is just the kind of thinking that seems to interest that New Zealander, Andrew Niccol who wrote the book on The Truman Show. He likes to flirt with the differences between reality and how we construct reality in our heads. It's probably something we all could benefit from by thinking about. But it's his portrayal of his take on things and created for entertainment purposes like we also seem to sometimes entertain ourselves in our own minds in other ways.

On a different note, the C's also said that nobody is a nobody, right? So, let's look at the bigger picture. Better yet, let's just practice some cognitive fluidity and occasionally move up and down between the primal, wordless levels where we can perceive nothing but seemingly unique individuals, up to the biggest holistic coherent picture we can manage. And let's not be afraid of the unknown, that 'mysterious' something behind the 'hidden door'. Maybe it's just the same reality it's always been, just seen and appreciated in a new way. And maybe it's quite natural for humans to be that flexible so that we can adapt to a wide variety of conditions and circumstances.

On a final note, Gurdjieff talked about knowledge being distributed all over the world and it's true and I think it's inevitable for things to be like that. No single source could contain all that we can know about ourselves and reality. Such a single source would be so densely packed that just the very slightest instability would break the symmetry of the arrangement and cause an explosion that would redistribute everything all over the world again. This is, of course, just my opinion, but it explains why I read so many different sources and constantly stay on the hunt for something new, different and useful in some way.

Like bjorn suggests, don't give up the fight. It's not over until Fat Guy sings, and sometimes not even then cause he occasionally flubs his cue. :)

I think it could be argued that some are getting stuck in their own "mental constructions" in this thread . I know I am but only because I wanted to test the walls of the construction and in conclusion I accept 2 things

• It's okay for someone to get injected if their situation dictates it and they are okay with it (even reluctantly so)
• It's okay for someone to refuse even if the situation dictates this will come at a high price but they should be aware that this is not the final "hill" in this great journey.

In the end it all comes down to individual choice.

 

[Joe]

@Joe etc is when does standing up for dignity outweigh the fear of job loss, imprisonment or dying? At what point does a man say he's had enough and he's willing to be defiant despite repercussion? I think that's the question.

All depends on the specific situation. So it's not very useful to generalize.

• Your bodily integrity being violated via the use of power and submission
• The feeling of powerlessness to say no or fight back
• The feeling of helplessness
• Feeling of having something in your body you can't get out
• Feeling of being "owned" and being a "thing" as opposed to a person

Can someone put forward an argument why for a person who doesn't consent this is not akin to rape? Is it because it's 'state sanctioned' or 'employer mandated' and there's mass acceptance of it?

That's all about the feels. Far better to use critical thinking in such a situation. I can choose to feel that I am "owned" because I got a vaccine or I can CHOOSE to feel otherwise. etc. etc.

 

[Joe]

This thread summed up (mostly) in one composite image, and it includes those who had to take the vax, because with knowledge and awareness and just being your awesome selves, you'll can easily avoid any negative repercussions. Just change the text on the bull from "Jab" to "Jab side effects".

 

[Jenn]

But isn't the perception of the dynamics a subjective thing? Doesn't it come down to how a person feels? If someone really doesn't want to be subjected to the jab and if in doing so they are plunged into an abyss of darkness, how can someone else say that isn't rape? Some people see it that strongly and how can other people say they are wrong? I used the word rape because the same dynamics are in play as outlined in my bullet points. The same reflexes will be initiated within people who are sensitised to these things i.e. their sense of self is anchored around maintaining a secure sense of self that isn't violated by the "other". Not everyone is the same but some people will react very badly to being transgressed against to the point where life will be meaningless to them.

To clarify, what I mean to say is these people will resist to the end and if they are overpowered and subdued, they will probably break and the world will likely become this thing that they will eventually have to get even with.

If as you said the possible outcome of being forced to get the jab was that the person was left feeling incapacitated, with a meaningless life, and broken, it seems like it would be beneficial to cultivate a different attitude before the fact to avoid this from happening. I'm not speaking about people in general who are adamantly against the vax and don't know about the forum, because they are not the ones asking the questions here.

To allow the experience to define us, to remain as victims, and allow it to crush our spirits seems... unproductive (for lack of a better word).

Everything can be taken from a man but one thing: the last of human freedoms - to choose one's attitude in any given set of circumstances, to choose one's own way.

Viktor E. Frankl