Michael Moore's sicko leaked on to the free internet servers

BritishSubject said:
Gurdjieff has spoken. How dare anybody question Gurdjieff. New data has been presented by " beau ".
Gurdjieff is a mere mortal with an opinion for goodness sake. This is a forum for crying out loud. Constructive argument & debate is called for.
erm... sarcasm not called for.

did you understand WHY Beau quoted that particular passage? you're not getting it. The Gurdjieff quote was not meant in the sense you read it. it was meant to define the vocabulary we are using, and the difference between 'conscience' and 'morality'. these terms have become corrupted, and need to be clearly defined.


BritishSubject said:
Oh shite. I'm about to get myself into hot water.. Yes I read it. I was careful to include, " as we consider it in the West ".
this is not a competition to outsmart each other, taking careful steps in order to not be found in the wrong, to calculatedly manouvre oneself into an argument-winning position.

this forum is for those who search for objective truth. wherever that may take them. this is not a game. if you want to play games, fine, but not here.

BritishSubject said:
A nasty controlling influence has crept into the background of U.S. government & it aint all bothered about holding to western standards of basic morality.
as for the US gov... :rolleyes: they are holding to 'western standards of basic morality'. oh yes. a similar morality that has been used throughout the ages to justify the most horrific acts. and it has absolutely nothing to do with conscience, and everything to do with arbitrary manipulative rules that the psychopath can use to induce guilt/pity/fear into a normal human being in order to impel them to think that the right action is one which goes against their now-deadened conscience, which they can no longer hear, because this 'western psychopathic morality' has defeated their defenses, corrupted their thinking, their reasoning and their empathy.

a morality that causes parents to send their children into the military, to their deaths, under the illusion that they are "fighting for freedom" when actually they are reigning down terror and destruction, gunning down innocent human beings in foreign lands, whilst furthering the psychopathic agenda of the pathocrats at the cost of humanity.

and it hasn't 'crept in'. it has been around all along. this is apparent from even a fairly cursory study of politics, history and religion.

so, where is this discussion taking us? have you anything useful to bring? why are you here and what are you looking for?
 
BritishSubject said:
Gurdjieff has spoken. How dare anybody question Gurdjieff. New data has been presented by " beau ".
Looks like YOU are the one who doesn't like to be questioned. We quote people all the time. Not because said quote is to be taken as scripture, but rather that it elucidates a point very well.

BS said:
Gurdjieff is a mere mortal with an opinion for goodness sake.
As are you. Apparently you take your opinion as more than just that, and you highly discount the opinions of others if they do not fit into your preconceptions. If your cup is full, it's going to spill over here.

BS said:
This is a forum for crying out loud. Constructive argument & debate is called for.
This is NOT a forum for debate. Understand that. We are for discussion. If you cannot remain within the bounds of respectable discussion, you will not be allowed to continue in that discussion. All it took was a little scratch and you flew off the handle. If you continue communicating like that, I'll send you on your way so you can find another forum where you can debate your oh so holy beliefs.
 
BS said:
Our outlook on life may not be all that different really. I have an absolute belief though that morality (as we consider it the West) is a product of conscience. They go hand in hand.
Ok, which of these is a product of conscience?

- Religious brainwashing/indoctrination of millions since childhood.
- Capitalism aka "survival/empowerment of the fittest".
- Manipulation of public opinion by politicians and corporations.
- Having a court of law designed to protect psychopaths and hide the truth by allowing gag orders, banning of evidence, and clever manipulative arguments to win over the jury, etc.
- Pre-emptive warfare aka "kill anyone that we suspect might decide to hurt us sometime in the future".
- Politicians electing themselves to office through commercials, financing, and connections - not through actually having been chosen by people based on past performance.
- National Security aka government secrecy
- Selling poison in food and drinks
- Adding dangerous and absolutely pointless chemicals to public water supplies like Fluoride aka forced medication
- Television / videogame industry that encourages turning our brains into jello
- Forcing people to pay a fortune for health insurance, education, and other things that are bare necessities to live a normal and fulfilling life, offered freely by many nations around the world
- 2 words: "Intellectual property"
- Taking any need for critical thinking out of education, and turning it into drone-like career training instead.
- Being "nice" to everybody just because society tells you to be nice for its own sake?
- Preventing gays from getting married?

This list could go on and on. Conscience has nothing to do with morality, western or eastern or northern or southern - morality is subjective, conscience is objective. That's the difference.
 
BritishSubject said:
I am a humble Engineer, I like solid objects, things I can clearly grasp & hopefully understand. I will leave concepts (notions) to dreamers. Concepts allow the mind to run rampant. It has'nt benefited Man to date.
Allow me to quote a correspondent who wrote to me on the subject - an engineer, in fact:

Isn’t it amazing that Newton couldn’t discover universal gravitation until 50 years after Descartes created the mathematical method of analyzing geometric data in an algebraic equation? It would take about 50 years for the method to disseminate, become second nature, raise a new generation immersed it, and who then began noticing phenomena that these new mathematical expressions did a really good job of modeling. It was more than 40 years after Hamilton created quaternions that Maxwell discovered how well they fit for formulating the equations of electromagnetism. It was 50 years after Riemann created his general, curvilinear, non-Euclidean geometry that Einstein, with help from Minkowski, noticed how well it expressed the relations of special and general relativity.

My theory is that people can’t notice something until they have the reference point to understand what it is they are observing. Specifically, scientists can’t notice, “hey, these new patterns fit together
 
Laura said:
BritishSubject said:
I am a humble Engineer, I like solid objects, things I can clearly grasp & hopefully understand. I will leave concepts (notions) to dreamers. Concepts allow the mind to run rampant. It has'nt benefited Man to date.
Allow me to quote a correspondent who wrote to me on the subject - an engineer, in fact:

Isn’t it amazing that Newton couldn’t discover universal gravitation until 50 years after Descartes created the mathematical method of analyzing geometric data in an algebraic equation? It would take about 50 years for the method to disseminate, become second nature, raise a new generation immersed it, and who then began noticing phenomena that these new mathematical expressions did a really good job of modeling. It was more than 40 years after Hamilton created quaternions that Maxwell discovered how well they fit for formulating the equations of electromagnetism. It was 50 years after Riemann created his general, curvilinear, non-Euclidean geometry that Einstein, with help from Minkowski, noticed how well it expressed the relations of special and general relativity.

My theory is that people can’t notice something until they have the reference point to understand what it is they are observing. Specifically, scientists can’t notice, “hey, these new patterns fit together�� until they have a mathematics that describes this kind of relationship as being a pattern, rather than random marks on a graph.

Think about what it would be like to discover that all of your data fit into a parabolic shape, but you don’t know what a parabola is. How disappointed you would be to realize it doesn’t make a straight line, when straight lines are all you know. “I guess there was nothing to that hypothesis after all,�� you say as you discard the data.

Tomorrow some brilliant mathematician will create a method of graphing quadratic equations thinking he has invented the perfect pure math, which couldn’t possibly have any practical application. Fifty years from now, your grandson will review your data, or recreate your experiments. He will get the same data points that you did, but now he recognizes the pattern as a parabola. It was a parabola all along, but you didn’t know it, because parabolae hadn’t been invented yet when you plotted the data.

If you don’t recognize the pattern, then your brain interprets it as random - no pattern at all. This means you pay it no attention. In this way, mathematicians create the world we live in. What an outrageous statement! No Physicist would admit the validity of that, after all, they are trained to observe the real world, not confirm some dreamer’s fantasy! Yeah, right. Only problem with that is, history tells us that over and over, Physicists were unable to see the patterns in front of their eyes until someone had invented a mathematics that made this kind of pattern recognizable and distinguishable from random noise.

Therefore there is a very real sense in which the only reality we can recognize is that of the patterns for which we have a mathematical template. Therefore we can only observe that part of infinite reality for which some enterprising mathematician has invented the pattern.

The mathematician does NOT describe an objective reality, which he observes; he instead creates relationships, which he considers “beautiful�� , or “elegant�� , or perhaps “entertaining�� . He doesn’t think his creation has any practical application, but it always does. Because any time somebody describes the template for a new pattern, now (in about 50 years) people will begin noticing those parts of the infinite universe, which fit into to this new pattern. Before they just seemed random, but now that we recognize the pattern, it’s so obvious we don’t understand how Aristotle overlooked it. And a new generation of historians will write books about how Archimedes was actually on the verge of inventing this himself just before the Romans killed him.
I think you might want to re-think your notion that concepts have not benefitted man to date...

BritishSubject said:
I have an absolute belief though that morality (as we consider it the West) is a product of conscience. They go hand in hand...
Allow me to quote Gurdjieff on the subject of conscience vs. morality:

"In ordinary life the concept 'conscience' is taken too simply. As if we had a conscience. Actually the concept 'conscience' in the sphere of the emotions is equivalent to the concept 'consciousness' in the sphere of the intellect. And as we have no consciousness we have no conscience.

"Consciousness is a state in which a man knows all at once everything that he in general knows and in which he can see how little he does know and how many contradictions there are in what he knows.

"Conscience is a state in which a man feels all at once everything that he in general feels, or can feel. And as everyone has within him thousands of contradictory feelings which vary from a deeply hidden realization of his own nothingness and fears of all kinds to the most stupid kind of self-conceit, self-confidence, self-satisfaction, and self-praise, to feel all this together would not only be painful but literally unbearable.

"If a man whose entire inner world is composed of contradictions were suddenly to feel all these contradictions simultaneously within himself, if he were to feel all at once that he loves everything he hates and hates everything he loves; that he lies when he tells the truth and that he tells the truth when he lies; and if he could feel the shame and horror of it all, this would be the state which is called 'conscience. A man cannot live in this state; he must either destroy contradictions or destroy conscience. He cannot destroy conscience, but if he cannot destroy it he can put it to sleep, that is, he can separate by impenetrable barriers one feeling of self from another, never see them together, never feel their incompatibility, the absurdity of one existing alongside another.

"But fortunately for man, that is, for his peace and for his sleep, this state of conscience is very rare. From early childhood 'buffers' begin to grow and strengthen in him, taking from him the possibility of seeing his inner contradictions and therefore, for him, there is no danger whatever of a sudden awakening. Awakening is possible only for those who seek it and want it, for those who are ready to struggle with themselves and work on themselves for a very long time and very persistently in order to attain it. For this it is necessary to destroy 'buffers,' that is, to go out to meet all those inner sufferings which are connected with the sensations of contradictions. Moreover the destruction of 'buffers' in itself requires very long work and a man must agree to this work realizing that the result of his work will be every possible discomfort and suffering from the awakening of his conscience.

"But conscience is the fire which alone can fuse all the powders in the glass retort which was mentioned before and create the unity which a man lacks in that state in which he begins to study himself.
"The concept 'conscience' has nothing in common with the concept 'morality.'

"Conscience is a general and a permanent phenomenon. Conscience is the same for all men and conscience is possible only in the absence of 'buffers.' From the point of view of understanding the different categories of man we may say that there exists the conscience of a man in whom there are no contradictions. This conscience is not suffering; on the contrary it is joy of a totally new character which we are unable to understand. But even a momentary awakening of conscience in a man who has thousands of different I's is bound to involve suffering. And if these moments of conscience become longer and if a man does not fear them but on the contrary co¬operates with them and tries to keep and prolong them, an element of very subtle joy, a foretaste of the future 'clear consciousness' will gradually enter into these moments.

"There is nothing general in the concept of 'morality.' Morality consists of buffers. There is no general morality. What is moral in China is immoral in Europe and what is moral in Europe is immoral in China. What is moral in Petersburg is immoral in the Caucasus. And what is moral in the Caucasus is immoral in Petersburg. What is moral in one class of society is immoral in another and vice versa. Morality is always and everywhere an artificial phenomenon. It consists of various 'taboos,' that is, restrictions, and various demands, sometimes sensible in their
basis and sometimes having lost all meaning or never even having had any meaning, and having been created on a false basis, on a soil of superstition and false fears.

"Morality consists of 'buffers.' And since 'buffers' are of various kinds, and as the conditions of life in different countries and in different ages or among different classes of society vary considerably, so the morality created by them is also very dissimilar and contradictory. A morality common to all does not exist. It is even impossible to say that there exists any general idea of morality, for instance, in Europe. It is said sometimes that the general morality for Europe is 'Christian morality.' But first of all the idea of 'Christian morality' itself admits of very many different interpretations and many different crimes have been justified by 'Christian morality.' And in the second place modern Europe has very little in common with 'Christian morality,' no matter how we understand this morality.

"In any case, if 'Christian morality' brought Europe to the war which is now going on, then it would be as well to be as far as possible from such morality."

"Many people say that they do not understand the moral side of your teaching," said one of us. "And others say that your teaching has no morality at all."

"Of course not," said G. "People are very fond of talking about morality. But morality is merely self-suggestion. What is necessary is conscience. We do not teach morality. We teach how to find conscience. People are not pleased when we say this. They say that we have no love. Simply because we do not encourage weakness and hypocrisy but, on the contrary, take off all masks. He who desires the truth will not speak of love or of Christianity because he knows how far he is from these. Christian teaching is for Christians. And Christians are those who live, that is, who do everything, according to Christ's precepts. Can they who talk of love and morality live according to Christ's precepts? Of course they cannot; but there will always be talk of this kind, there will always be people to whom words are more precious than anything else. But this is a true sign! He who speaks like this is an empty man; it is not worth while wasting time on him.

"Morality and conscience are quite different things. One conscience can never contradict another conscience. One morality can always very easily contradict and completely deny another. A man with 'buffers' may be very moral. And 'buffers' can be very different, that is, two very moral men may consider each other very immoral. As a rule it is almost inevitably so. The more 'moral' a man is, the more 'immoral' does he think other moral people.
I am refering to the concept of GOD. That notion has brought Hell on Earth
 
That's a fairly broad stroke. I don't agree. I'd say that psychopathy has brought hell on earth. It's just used ideologies such as monotheism, or capitalism, or zionism to enslave the rest of us.
 
sleepyvinny said:
BritishSubject said:
Please consider this : Morality ( however you determine it ) plays no positive part in evolution.

The Human Race has evolved to the point of gaining consciousness. Many Biologists sadly consider this a freak occurance, playing no progressive part in evolution, a hindrance to the ruthless efficiency of natural selection.

With consciousness has come conscience, within conscience is morality in it's undetermined form. How an individuals morality is going to manifest itself is governed by the environment that individual finds himself/herself in, but not always. The vast majority it does apply to.

As Humans, we are capable of observing efficient evolutionary progress. The Honey Bee society is typical of such success. That success comes at a price. Exterminate non-productive individuals within the society & efficiency is maintained.
doesn't that depend on what you call 'productive'? is that really evolution. by ignoring conscience/consciousness and the 'creative principle'? it seems like a totally mechanical and psychopathic world view.

BritishSubject said:
Nazi Germany was the last to tinker with such a practice openly ( lethal injection for the insane of their community ) but even those sicko's could'nt bring themselves to apply it further than that.

Leo Strauss, having experienced Nazi tyranny, is something of an enigma. His lunatic disciples, now being termed The U.S. Neo Conservatives. Have they creamed off just his basic philosophy of a supposed "intellectual" few governing the mindless mass of a society. Surely such an "intellectual" few must hold to moral standards as we consider them within Western Society. Was Strauss truly advocating exploitation of the mindless masses for the financial benefit of the few ?

Attempts at a "moral", just social system has maybe been seen just a very few times in Human history. The most recent being attitudes of some South Pacific island communities over many centuries & also within certain Jewish communities. Western Society is, at present, trying it's hardest, The U.S. & maybe Britain are experiencing a potentially serious glitch at the moment.
I think you are using a completely different vocabulary to most here, when you talk about 'moral', 'immoral', 'conscience', 'productivity', 'evolution'. I don't know where to start...

BritishSubject said:
I have to be optomistic. U.S. citizens, more than most, know how to fight for freedom.
is that supposed to be some kind of a sick joke?

BritishSubject said:
Immoral forces within your society have shown their hand, it would be best to deal with them now before they gain a greater stranglehold.
now I'm just confused. first you say morality plays no part in evolution. then you seem to be advocating stamping out immorality.
Okay. I think it best if I discuss/debate one last thing before I take some timeout and enjoy others input.

Firstly : At no time at all in this forum have I insulted, belittled or ridiculed any Nation, it's Nationals, or the religion it may hold to.

Secondly : I have sincerly enjoyed, maybe a little boisterously the exchange of comment within this forum. I have genuinely not lost my cool at any time although some have seen it as such.

Please note the above replies. Within a couple lines the feathers have been ruffled of any U.S. citizen reading them. And also any Jewish member of the communities I refer to.
But when it comes from you it is for the sake of intellectual discussion. Dear oh dear oh dear.
 
BritishSubject said:
Please note the above replies. Within a couple lines the feathers have been ruffled of any U.S. citizen reading them. And also any Jewish member of the communities I refer to. But when it comes from you it is for the sake of intellectual discussion. Dear oh dear oh dear.
Apologies, but this is simply incorrect. No one's feathers were ruffled by what you said, it is simply that on this forum, when anyone writes something that is flawed logically, belief based or just plain 'out of left field' without backing up what they say with data, they will be called on it. Period.

You clearly know very little about this forum and its associated web sites if you think any amercian citizen, or jewish member of the forum is upset with criticism of either 'establishment'.

Also, you did, very clearly, attempt to insult or belittle Beau with your snide remarks about his quoting Gurdjieff, so your little proclamation that 'at no time have I insulted' is simply disingenuous - rather a 'reversive blockade' actually. You might want to search the forum for that phrase since it is not used commonly.

The last sentence in your 'no I didn't do that' post is yet another little snide jab - 'oh dear oh dear oh dear' - this is not the place for such self-indulgent 'nastiness' . Do you understand that?
 
BritishSubject said:
Okay. I think it best if I discuss/debate one last thing before I take some timeout and enjoy others input.
Clearly you are being facetious here. I don't think you enjoy anyone's input but you're own.

BS said:
Firstly : At no time at all in this forum have I insulted, belittled or ridiculed any Nation, it's Nationals, or the religion it may hold to.
No, you only insulted and belittled me.

BS said:
Secondly : I have sincerly enjoyed, maybe a little boisterously the exchange of comment within this forum. I have genuinely not lost my cool at any time although some have seen it as such.
Yeah right. One thing is clear: you enjoy debating. Apparently you don't lose your cool because you are feeding off of the attention you are getting. You could care less about the comments from other people here.

BS said:
Please note the above replies. Within a couple lines the feathers have been ruffled of any U.S. citizen reading them. And also any Jewish member of the communities I refer to.
But when it comes from you it is for the sake of intellectual discussion. Dear oh dear oh dear.
You can't help yourself can you? Why are you here?
 
Morals are subjective. I have done some studying of ethics this year. Deontological ethics places moral value on "right action" and "duty" in terms of immediate results -- that includes not hurting others with your immediate actions. It's not as subjective as it may sound. On the other hand, axiological/consequentialist/utilitarianist ethics and their branches place moral value in any action that advances the "greatest good," as in helps the "majority" of some group of people. It's all about "relative goodness" of an action’s motive and end result.

Boom! You can see how all axiological/consequentialist/utilitarianist ethics are doubly and triply subjective and completely open to abuse. "Good" is subjective in itself, but in this context it *has* to be defined by someone for a whole group to benefit "the majority." The decider gets to define what good is, and whom it will benefit, then goes ahead and assigns moral value to any action that advances this "good." This is how, for instance, you can be admired and even get a medal for deontologically unethical actions, such as killing lots of people in a "battle for your country." Basically, it says the end justifies the means.

So, if you're a psychopath, and you decide that depopulation of Earth benefits your kind, and is thus "good," you can be perfectly "moral" in any action that brings about this result. And this is just how psychopaths justify it.

I would beware of folks spouting talk of "ethics," which is too general (unless they define it as deontological or otherwise), nor "morals," which are wholly subjective. This is the kind of conversive language that induces consersive thinking, just like Lobaczewski warned us about in Political Ponerology.
 
BritishSubject wrote:
A Nation gets the Government it deserves. You Sad, Sad society.


April says: USA, Canada, Britain and Australia are all the same. Empire colonizing the world. All of them have blood on their hands.

Edit: Okay I sound like a five year old interrupting hahah! I posted my response to BritishSubject after I read his first post on this thread but before reading all of the subsequent posts from others. AFTER I read through the rests of the posts I see others on this forum handled it much more thoroughly therefore negating me piping in my toddlerness hahahha!

Note to self...read ALL of the posts on the thread before quipping in April :) Oh well every group needs an ADA requirement and thaz me :)

April out ;0
 
OFF-TOPIC?

BTW: I wanted to add something I noticed that a lot of posters
are posting, words such as:

[...] as for the US gov... roll-eyes[...]
Well, just think for a moment... it isn't JUST the USA has "the problem", but
"the problem" exists just about EVERYWHERE on the BBM. "The problem"
refers to a psychopath, pathocrat, and so on, and they exist EVERYWHERE.

I think we ought to keep this in mind when referring to a country by name
when discussing "the problem"?

OSIT.
 
Yeah I went off topic..giggle :D

I was just making fun of myself as I am Lirpa=April.

I just added my two cents worth before reading all the posts and seeing that the other posters addressed the issue as it is everywhere i.e. USA Britain Australia and Canada are all guilty.

April aka Lirpa
:)
 
Back
Top Bottom