Objective Knowledge as a Political Tool

[luke wilson]

Right off the bat, let me say I am not going up against the concept of 'objective knowledge' rather I am seeking clarification to my understanding that will hopefully resolve some underlying issues that have always sat uneasy with me.

So, when I was doing my own research into racism, I came across the concept of 'objective knowledge' as a political tool. In that context, it was used imperialistically. To conquer and subjugate others. Basically the narration went something like this:

So these conquerors, the 'Europeans' believed through science/philosophy/whatever they had objective knowledge, but the rest of the world didn't i.e. native populations of the americas, africa, asia etc. So they went over to there lands and converted them i.e. you have to surrender your backwards way and take our objective way. It was political because it established a hierarchy. Objectivity from the get-go was defined by the conqueror who was the best equipped to understand it and thus educate the rest.

So essentially, I have always been uneasy with such concepts especially when it is used in a political sense. But, I believe that is not how it is used in this forum but I don't know any addition to the meaning of the concept that the forum has beyond what is described in the dictionary. My working knowledge of what the forum means when it uses the term is, to try and erase our own individual biases that may be borne from wounds or injuries sustained that may cloud our vision and to take other people's unbiased views into account to create a more holistic view of what is being observed. That is essentially how I understand it as is used in the context of this forum.

Another criticism of 'objective knowledge' that I read about is that at its very base it requires a 'disconnect' between the observer and the observed. This compared to how native populations used to live where there was no disconnect, everything was connected, the community, the environment, life and space. Now I don't know what in practise the idea of connection meant as I didn't live in those times but I believe this argument is valid as I can see how communities round the world were decimated on the backside of such ideas and there implications. Without the integrated community, the individual was left at the mercy of malevolent forces.

Moving on, so today I watched this documentary. Here the concept was touched upon, in particular in the context of the friction between classical physicists and more modern/diverse physicists. To explain,

Apparently, without conscious observation, many physicists believe the universe wouldn't exist.

Observations not only disturb what is to be measured, they produce it.

Pascual Jordan

Ernst Pascual Jordan was a theoretical and mathematical physicist who made significant contributions to quantum mechanics and quantum field theory. Wikipedia

I'd like to think that the moon is there even if I am not looking at it

The doc goes on to say that Einstein based his assertion on 'reality' i.e. that things can exist independent of conscious observation and 'separability' i.e. matter and energy can exist in isolation unconnected to anything else. Apparently, both of these ideas have now been shown to be false.

The thesis that the object of scientific knowledge exist and act independently of the knowledge of them

Apparently, experiments have shown that there is no such thing as a real object which exists in isolation without being influenced by others things. With regards to separability, apparently, everything is connected to everything else beyond what is usually considered physical forces. The only reason I buy this is because of what we know about cosmic interactions with the experience of humans i.e. comet cleansing which if it is to be believed implies connection not to mention G's cosmological views.

So coming back to the topic of objectivity, my understanding of what is meant when people say it, not what I take it to mean, is that if we all remove ourselves from ourselves essentially, our emotions our biases etc and view the world, what we will see is 'objective' reality.

BUT,

If we remove ourselves from who and what we are, down to the bone, I am starting to get the impression that what will be there, is nothing i.e. reality is a construct of consciousness and consciousness is 'personal' i.e. no separation. Furthermore, this act of separation, is false as it can't happen as the one thing that is true, is that nothing exists in isolation thus, the political bias of such an idea i.e. the only purpose it serves, is a political one and none other. I can have my consciousness but we can all have our consciousness together (it all interacts with each other) and our view will be influenced by that. For example, when the Cs talk about the fall and it being a group decision, I take that to mean a conscious choice that then had further implications i.e. we created what we are experiencing now so that we may learn from it which is connected to other things as well other than just us.

So, to cut it short,

Where does the concept of objective knowledge divert from political desire and how can it be used without the political implications i.e. denying others there free choice?

I take subjective knowledge to mean, incomplete knowledge based solely on your view without taking into account other points of views which will offer more vantage points which can mean we get a better understanding of the subject in question. Furthermore, ones view might be tainted by misinformation, wounds, lack of knowledge etc. The wider view is closer to objective knowledge but it is still not separate from us. Objective view would be the sum total of every consciousness holding being in all its variations of perception and experience in existence ever: past, present and future. That is my view and I am seeking clarification.

 

[Carl]

Where does the concept of objective knowledge divert from political desire and how can it be used without the political implications i.e. denying others there free choice?

As I see it an individual can make a choice to strive towards objective knowledge, or seeing the universe as it sees itself. In doing so, the individual would then have to participate, eventually growing and "becoming" the universe in a bigger and bigger way until "all is one".
Forcing your views onto somebody else is an entirely different matter. Those who claim to have objective knowledge do not, they have right man syndrome.

I take subjective knowledge to mean, incomplete knowledge based solely on your view without taking into account other points of views which will offer more vantage points which can mean we get a better understanding of the subject in question. Furthermore, ones view might be tainted by misinformation, wounds, lack of knowledge etc. The wider view is closer to objective knowledge but it is still not separate from us. Objective view would be the sum total of every consciousness holding being in all its variations of perception and experience in existence ever: past, present and future. That is my view and I am seeking clarification.

That's also how I see it right now.

 

[Buddy]

Basically the narration went something like this:

So these conquerors, the 'Europeans' believed through science/philosophy/whatever they had objective knowledge, but the rest of the world didn't i.e. native populations of the americas, africa, asia etc. So they went over to there lands and converted them i.e. you have to surrender your backwards way and take our objective way. It was political because it established a hierarchy. Objectivity from the get-go was defined by the conqueror who was the best equipped to understand it and thus educate the rest.

I'm not familiar with that narrative, but in place of the word "objective" in the above paragraph, when I use the word 'scientific' or 'scientism', depending on the phrase, it does sound more like the train of ideas I've heard or read before.

So essentially, I have always been uneasy with such concepts especially when it is used in a political sense.

I think I'm uneasy with just about all concepts used in a political sense.

But, I believe that is not how it is used in this forum but I don't know any addition to the meaning of the concept that the forum has beyond what is described in the dictionary.

Interestingly, the word "objectivity" seems to be understood and described differently by different people as I have noticed over the years of reading and studying this very concept as it's applied in Philosophy, Metaphyisics and Science-in-general. And this observation of differences applies even when the context of a discussion is about simple personal experience.

In fact, last night I was scanning through a discussion of 'objectivity' on a Philosophy forum and noticed that none of the participants ended the discussion with a common definition of the word or even a common understanding. Some even disagreed on a common definition of "knowledge". Someone even made an interesting comment that knowledge is not an object (thing), but rather a property of a person because it doesn't make sense to talk about knowledge that no one has.

By looking at what everyone will agree with, though, it seems everyone agrees that objective knowledge is shared, publicly verifiable knowledge, and that brings us around to the forum. Are you familiar with the forum's view of objectivity or objective knowledge as it's illustrated in the forum guidelines?

I take subjective knowledge to mean, incomplete knowledge based solely on your view without taking into account other points of views which will offer more vantage points which can mean we get a better understanding of the subject in question. Furthermore, ones view might be tainted by misinformation, wounds, lack of knowledge etc. The wider view is closer to objective knowledge but it is still not separate from us.

I can agree with the above. Also, I think 'certainty' becomes a relevant issue with subjective knowledge. For instance, you only know what I tell you about the pain in my ankle from an over-stretched tendon, and we can debate whether this knowledge is objective or subjective from a third person or public perspective, but regardless, I can assure you that it's quite certain.

More directly connected to your topic title, I see Objective Knowledge as a Political Tool like this example:

Out of an imagined total of 1000 facts about planet Earth's climate, take 500 of those facts, trash the rest and weave what's left into a historical narrative called Global Warming. Sure, it's all objective knowledge, but the false context (leaving out the rest of the data that would show a different picture) encourages a false interpretation of the objective knowledge which you then create a video from so that Al Gore can get a Nobel Peace Prize.

I can understand you being uneasy about that.

 

[luke wilson]

Hi Buddy,

I was going to come up with a more detailed response to you but I can't describe what I wish to communicate through accurately enough. The result will be that we won't be able to communicate. Your response missed something that I was trying to get through, I think because I may not have described it accurately enough. Any further attempt to do so would probably end in failure. The way I see it is there are 2 possibilities:

- I communicated accurately enough and you understood what I was intending on saying, and thus formulated your response from this.
- You saw what you wanted to see and came up with a response based on this.

I don't know which is which.

So instead I'll say, my aim was to point out that certain concepts can be used politically. I was personally astonished to find out that this concept of what is true and what isn't has been used over millennia to batter people into submission. Furthermore, I wished to point out the the definition of 'objective' has changed over time, but the essence of the word, beyond the definitions, has remained the same. The same way our external world changes but the essence of who we are remains the same. If you just have your eyes set on the external world (the definitions) you will lose sight of what lies underneath. So I was wondering, in what way is the essence of the definition in the forum, different. I ask as I have not seen it tackled. Maybe it is implied implicitly and doesn't have to be pointed out. Not that I am questioning the use of the word in the forum, rather I am trying to understand it, beyond the words.

The essence, is political, nobody will say this though, duh! but nonetheless, how has the concept in the forum overcome that. The essence comes pre-packaged, from thousands of years worth of indoctrination. The same way we come pre-packaged with hidden psychological biases and to overcome them, we must a) recognize them b) fight them. Without a) there can be no b). Applying to objective knowledge, you can't have the idea without the bias (political aspect). Why? The idea isn't our own, we borrowed it from others who designed it long before we were born and 'hid' trojan horses in there, same way we borrowed our bodies, from others who designed them and 'hid' trojan horses in there.

The words

For this group, linear thinking is subjective and only nonlinear thinking can be objective.

Objective is "how the universe sees itself".

Essentially, what I am saying, is I hope there isn't any political bias in the above words, just so you know - as we inherit more than just the words and changing the definition of the word doesn't change what is underneath automatically as if by magic. ;)

It appears the 4th way tried to counter this by the idea of 'strategic enclosure' i.e. don't take what you think is true and attempt to convert others who aren't interested. We take it to mean that this will offer protection from the general law but maybe it also has another purpose, a hidden purpose, to erase the political bias.

 

[Buddy]

For this group, linear thinking is subjective and only nonlinear thinking can be objective.

Objective is "how the universe sees itself".

Essentially, what I am saying, is I hope there isn't any political bias in the above words...

You couldn't have just said that to begin with? :)

Sorry for the mis-communication. I could sense what you were afraid of, so to speak; I just thought I chose a workable or useful way to address it in terms of the posts actual content, though. Thanks for the feedback.


Added later:

In retrospect, it appears I didn't implement the advice I was recently offered about saying what I was feeling as contrasted with what I was thinking in relation to the post when I could easily have done so. My apologies for that too.

 

[obyvatel]

Fwiw Buddy, I did not find anything in your post that would warrant an apology.

When I first read this thread, my reaction was what is Luke Wilson talking about? What does racism, objectivity and this forum have to do with each other in the way he is expressing it ? I was not sure how to begin addressing the question beyond pointing to definitions of objectivity as followed in this forum - which Luke has already read. So I did not reply. Not saying that I have a good handle on it now but I feel that a response is warranted.

Various "isms" like imperialism, colonialism, racism etc mostly boil down to one group of people who are stronger in terms of weapons, social position, economic power etc imposing their will on other groups who are in a relatively weaker position. It is one expression of the core of the psychopathy in our world - technological might and economic power serving the dictates of a primitive predatory aggressive instinct. Intelligence is also subjugated under the same instinct and takes the form of cunning. To justify the aggression, various trite excuses are used on the vanquished - " my religion is better than yours", " my scientific knowledge is better than yours", " my social and political system is better than yours" etc. etc. Where does objectivity - the way the universe perceives itself - come into the picture? The above, I think is an attempt towards approaching an objective view of the way things are.

What is interesting is Luke Wilson chose to focus on the term "objective knowledge" as the point of discussion among all the other available pathological rationalizations for the various deviant "isms" and tied it back to the forum's use of the same term with enough platitudes and disclaimers that he was not questioning the value of objective knowledge. I think the term conversive thinking used by Dr Lobaczewski is relevant here. According to him, conversive thinking uses general terms but gives them opposite or twisted meanings. Because objectivity is apparently a term used by pathological types to justify whatever they were doing to others, the term itself became suddenly contaminated with "political bias" used to deny free will of others. Note that it is just the opposite of what this forum stands for.

Continuing on, we talk about working on removing subjective biases to move towards a more objective view of the world. That idea is twisted into separating ourselves from reality which off course is not possible which then leads Luke Wilson somehow to the conclusion that the only purpose objective knowledge or objectivity serves is a political one which is to deny free will to others. Then he asks how the definition of the word "objectivity" is different in this forum from the newly discovered essence which he has put some effort in establishing in this thread. He goes on to quote the forum definition and says he hopes that it does not contain the above mentioned political bias of denying free will to others.

Luke Wilson rounds up his last post by twisting the meaning of the word "strategic enclosure" by musing that maybe it was constructed for the "hidden purpose" of counteracting the same political bias that lies at the foundation of objectivity.

My subjective view is that Luke Wilson's posts and the responses it got can teach us some important things. Both Carlisle and Buddy chose the same paragraph about subjective knowledge to find a footing for agreeing with what Luke Wilson was saying. Both of them also tried to voice their views in an effort to correct the distortion of the term "objectivity" - osit. Luke Wilson basically ignored the corrective attempts and went on to respond to Buddy's post by citing communication issues. Buddy does occasionally have communication issues and it recently happened in a couple of other threads; so the timing of bringing it up in this thread was interesting. So Buddy accepted that it was his problem and apologized.

It is possible that I may be seeing more than what this thread warrants. If however I am not mistaken, this is an example of pathological thinking (emphasis on thinking not the thinker; unlike Luke, I think it is possible to differentiate between the two) and its effect on people. I felt that a response was needed when I read Buddy's apologetic post yesterday but held off to think more because Luke Wilson's posts initially evoked a sense of bewilderment and a sense of irritation which could IMO be instinctive responses in the face of pathological material.

 

[luke wilson]

Hi Obyvatel,

Thanks for your post, it stung. Buddy, I am truly sorry.

I've never had a post of mine in that area of the forum before, but I think this one is a candidate for baked noodles.

I also wasn't aware of the different connections you have made.

I think the term conversive thinking used by Dr Lobaczewski is relevant here. According to him, conversive thinking uses general terms but gives them opposite or twisted meanings. Because objectivity is apparently a term used by pathological types to justify whatever they were doing to others, the term itself became suddenly contaminated with "political bias" used to deny free will of others.

That idea is twisted into separating ourselves from reality which off course is not possible which then leads Luke Wilson somehow to the conclusion that the only purpose objective knowledge or objectivity serves is a political one which is to deny free will to others. Then he asks how the definition of the word "objectivity" is different in this forum from the newly discovered essence which he has put some effort in establishing in this thread. He goes on to quote the forum definition and says he hopes that it does not contain the above mentioned political bias of denying free will to others.

Luke Wilson rounds up his last post by twisting the meaning of the word "strategic enclosure" by musing that maybe it was constructed for the "hidden purpose" of counteracting the same political bias that lies at the foundation of objectivity.

For the last quote, instead of twisting, i'd like to think of it as exploring different possibilities and testing there validity based on some preconceived idea but that could just be some kind of attempt to dodge the main issue which you are pointing at.

Luke Wilson basically ignored the corrective attempts and went on to respond to Buddy's post by citing communication issues. Buddy does occasionally have communication issues and it recently happened in a couple of other threads; so the timing of bringing it up in this thread was interesting. So Buddy accepted that it was his problem and apologized.

Buddy, I am truly sorry. In future, please free to be stern with me if you sense any of the above in our interactions. You'll probably be helping both of us.

If however I am not mistaken, this is an example of pathological thinking (emphasis on thinking not the thinker; unlike Luke, I think it is possible to differentiate between the two) and its effect on people.

Thank you for pointing this out, I didn't know.

Apologies again. I think this post, both my posts (this and this) in the Show #35: Surviving the End of the World (as we Know it) overall displayed major cognitive failures, the 1st one more than the second one. You also pointed out this to me which displayed what I suppose is pathological thinking and my reply to your post I think was more than likely an attempt to downplay the seriousness of your post, however, that appeared to have made its way without any detection (not receiving the reply it warranted). Additionally, I believe there may be others sprinkled about that may have gone underneath the 'radar' or that were just not mentioned to me.

I'll try to catch myself before wisecaring (hopefully that is the right spelling) and not add anything that doesn't really contribute to the discussion in a healthy way e.g. on the surviving the end of the world thread.

If anything is wrong with this post, please let me know as I have tried to make my reply as 'clean' as I can muster.

This post can come across as self-bashing but that is not the intent. I am just agreeing with you because what you said makes perfect logical sense. You know, I guess this is one of those situations I miss anart. She would have caught on way earlier and said it as it were.

 

[Buddy]

Fwiw Buddy, I did not find anything in your post that would warrant an apology.

When I first read this thread, my reaction was what is Luke Wilson talking about? What does racism, objectivity and this forum have to do with each other in the way he is expressing it ? I was not sure how to begin addressing the question beyond pointing to definitions of objectivity as followed in this forum - which Luke has already read. So I did not reply. Not saying that I have a good handle on it now but I feel that a response is warranted.

And I appreciate it. Also, your reply looks like a model for the advice you offered me, so I appreciate that too.

 

[obyvatel]

If anything is wrong with this post, please let me know as I have tried to make my reply as 'clean' as I can muster.

Since you asked. ....

[quote author=Luke wilson]
This post can come across as self-bashing but that is not the intent.
[/quote]

It did not appear self- bashing to me - at least not in any sincere way.

[quote author=Luke wilson]
I am just agreeing with you because what you said makes perfect logical sense.
[/quote]

Thanks for the "compliment". Off course as you say in the very next lines,
[quote author=Luke Wilson]
You know, I guess this is one of those situations I miss anart. She would have caught on way earlier and said it as it were.
[/quote]

a smarter person would have said it much earlier.

[quote author=Luke Wilson]

For the last quote, instead of twisting, i'd like to think of it as exploring different possibilities and testing there validity based on some preconceived idea but that could just be some kind of attempt to dodge the main issue which you are pointing at.
[/quote]

I see it differently from the way you would like to think about it. Off course you are agreeing with me given what I wrote earlier made "perfect logical sense" to you.

[quote author=Luke Wilson]

Buddy, I am truly sorry. In future, please free to be stern with me if you sense any of the above in our interactions. You'll probably be helping both of us.
[/quote]

So it will be Buddy's responsibility to be stern if he senses "any of the above". This could mean "I am sorry for manipulating your perceptions. Next time, please be stern with me." Or it could be "Not sure what I am apologizing for. Anyway feel free to watch out for yourself if it happens again".

Sounds like a tactical (as in appearing to come clean) apology which is far from being sincere.

 

[Buddy]

Buddy, I am truly sorry. In future, please free to be stern with me if you sense any of the above in our interactions. You'll probably be helping both of us.

Let's see if this is a tactical maneuver or not.

luke, when I first read your opening post, my reaction was almost identical to obyvatels', including the bewilderment and irritation, and I also wasn't going to reply. Even now, as obyvatel indicates, your apology seems less than sincere because it flows or floats (my description of the sensation) rather than seeming to have weight.

I confess that it was also a bit annoying to read your original post because, as usual, the sensation I get is similar to the one I get with a lot of your writing: a sort of "dancing in the clouds" feeling because it seems you tend to avoid tying what you are wanting to say to concrete examples that people can relate to, or even tying it to your personal experience so that we might comment on the experiential aspect or even answer the question "What does this have to do with you?" I've certainly done more than my share of something similar.

I did reply to you though, because for some reason I've always thought that if someone on the forum answered just this one more question or post of yours, your intellectual center would be satisfied long enough for you to get down to work and bone up on all the foundation material - including the basic psychology.

Referring to your thread's opening post, I did feel concern about the way you were using the concept of objectivity, and I wasn't quite sure of the best way to address it, so it occurred to me that if I told you what I was thinking and reading elsewhere, I could break it all down for you so that you might realize a need for a bit of research and thinking in order to build your understanding of the concept back up to something more meaningful. Maybe I shouldn't have, but that was my choice to do because I'm not good at analyzing people's text the way anart could do, the way obyvatel, Laura and others on here can do; I just know what doesn't make sense to me and I do understand that the problem can be with me sometimes.

Well, this is what I've been thinking and feeling, anyway.

What obyvatel said here:

Various "isms" like imperialism, colonialism, racism etc mostly boil down to one group of people who are stronger in terms of weapons, social position, economic power etc imposing their will on other groups who are in a relatively weaker position. It is one expression of the core of the psychopathy in our world - technological might and economic power serving the dictates of a primitive predatory aggressive instinct. Intelligence is also subjugated under the same instinct and takes the form of cunning. To justify the aggression, various trite excuses are used on the vanquished - " my religion is better than yours", " my scientific knowledge is better than yours", " my social and political system is better than yours" etc. etc. Where does objectivity - the way the universe perceives itself - come into the picture? The above, I think is an attempt towards approaching an objective view of the way things are.

...I agree with, because I see the motivation for conquering people in the same way as expressed in the quote above. If there was anyone saying "the spread of objective knowledge" was the goal, with or without a discernable political bias, well, that's just an excuse for hurting people.

In addition, you mentioned:

Without the integrated community, the individual was left at the mercy of malevolent forces.

...but I think that any and all individuals - even in an integrated community - can still be vulnerable or at the mercy of malevolent forces as we can see when we recollect what happened to Native American tribal cultures in this country (U.S.) as just one example. The problem was lack of knowledge of psychopathology and ponerization dynamics, OSIT.

Finally, I was a bit impressed seeing your thoughts trying to go quantum, so to speak, with your quotes of Einstein, Pascual Jordan and your interest in the content of that Natural News editor's article you quoted elsewhere (I read the article but passed on the video and any references to God or whatnot). But this is just giving Adams the benefit of doubt here at the moment because I know nothing of him yet.

So, all that said, I was still feeling hopeful for you even while accepting blame for mis-communication and that's another one of my problems that people have noticed before - the tendency to accept blame for whatever.

Overall, I can't judge your fitness for Fourth Way work. I'm still thinking you have potential, but I still have a sense of something missing in most of the posts of yours that I've read and thought about. At present I'm thinking of it as some experiential factor but I don't really know.

Maybe that's something worth thinking about? It's up to you, of course.

 

[luke wilson]

Hi Buddy,

I shall respond in a couple of hours.

Hi Obyvatel,

I totally understand the skepticism. In writing my reply to you, I was unsure how I was meant to respond in a way that was agreeable. Instead I took in what you said, I sat with the shock, I thought about it then I tried to come up with a response.

My comment regarding anart was not a jibe at your smartness. It was something completely different. The sting I felt, was similar to how I usually felt after anart caught onto one of my posts that was less than what it should be. But maybe there was some underlying reason as you say, a jibe. In my mind, the association was made because of the similarity of feeling.

Saying it was logical, I didn't mean compliment. I was comparing your post to mine. The way you designed yours flowed and made sense despite it coming from a place of subjective thought as you mentioned. Mine on the other hand didn't. Your first impression was "what is he talking about?".

Regarding this being some kind of tactical ploy, it could as well be as it appears my mind is somewhat machiavellian according to some tests I have taken. This I believe is just a product of upbringing and survival.

Regarding the self-bashing, as I was writing, I was going against the direction of the sting, and agreeing with you. To me, there was friction in feeling, so I thought I might come across as self-bashing but I was trying to have distance between the feeling and the points you were making.

Again, please I am trying to be sincere but be skeptical about this. I wouldn't trust me right now. If I am fooling you, I am fooling myself as I am trying to be sincere. If this is not up to standard, let me know how you would like me to process and respond to the information you are providing. I am asking because I get the feeling I might be processing it wrong and thus responding wrong, simply because there might be some underlying self-deception mechanism in play that I have no real awareness about.

 

[obyvatel]

I totally understand the skepticism. In writing my reply to you, I was unsure how I was meant to respond in a way that was agreeable.

Ok, impression management. Given that you have been banned a few times, it could make sense in a way.

[quote author=Luke Wilson]
Instead I took in what you said, I sat with the shock, I thought about it then I tried to come up with a response.
[/quote]

Given that you responded about an hour after my initial post, it could not have been that long that you "sat with the shock".

[quote author=Luke Wilson]

Regarding this being some kind of tactical ploy, it could as well be as it appears my mind is somewhat machiavellian according to some tests I have taken. This I believe is just a product of upbringing and survival.
[/quote]

Whether this is a product of upbringing or not, it is up to you to address it.

[quote author=Luke Wilson]
Regarding the self-bashing, as I was writing, I was going against the direction of the sting, and agreeing with you. To me, there was friction in feeling, so I thought I might come across as self-bashing but I was trying to have distance between the feeling and the points you were making.
[/quote]

What kind of feelings? Can you describe them?

[quote author=Luke Wilson]
Again, please I am trying to be sincere but be skeptical about this. I wouldn't trust me right now. If I am fooling you, I am fooling myself as I am trying to be sincere. If this is not up to standard, let me know how you would like me to process and respond to the information you are providing. I am asking because I get the feeling I might be processing it wrong and thus responding wrong, simply because there might be some underlying self-deception mechanism in play that I have no real awareness about.
[/quote]

Luke, the forum is different from other places where you would want to project the right image and make the right impression. A lot of time and energy has been spent by people here to answer your questions and help you. I cannot of the top of my mind recollect how many members have been banned and let back as many times as you have been - my guess is not too many.

When you are asked to do recommended reading, you tend to slip by. Recently you were asked how much reading about psychology related to narcissism as well as cognitive science you have done. I cannot quote your exact response at the moment but in one case your response was you had read the forum threads but essentially you cannot spend the time and effort to read long books; you learn better from asking questions and discussing. You have not read any of the recommended books on narcissism even though the topics have been brought up many times in response to discussions initiated by your posts. I do not know how much reading you have done related to 4th Way but the way you treated the topic of "strategic enclosure" was revealing. From my current understanding, you read the forum, pick up on some words and phrases that are used here frequently and then use it in your lingo without much understanding. Can this change? Do you want this to change? That would depend to an extent on how much effort you are willing to put in. Till date you have started 85 topics. Perhaps cutting down on that, reading and putting in the effort to understand recommended material more may be useful - but most likely you have been told this before. Are you capable of doing it is the question.

 

[luke wilson]

Hi Buddy,

I am going to try to be concrete.

I confess that it was also a bit annoying to read your original post because, as usual, the sensation I get is similar to the one I get with a lot of your writing: a sort of "dancing in the clouds" feeling because it seems you tend to avoid tying what you are wanting to say to concrete examples that people can relate to, or even tying it to your personal experience so that we might comment on the experiential aspect or even answer the question "What does this have to do with you?" I've certainly done more than my share of something similar.

The bolded is true as I have got enough feedback both in my real life and on here to show that it is true. I am naturally introverted so I recharge my batteries by dancing in the clouds. I'm not a doer, nor a thinker, more a dreamer. From my observations of others, people have certain natural tendencies that they default to.

I gained some recent insight by doing personality tests based on Jung's work. I did them more than once just to see. I know they aren't 100% reliable but the way I took the result is that it just offers an insight into what might be my default setting, what I have settled on as I have grown.

I came out an INFP.

According to the theory, the hierarchy is as follows for this type

Dominant: Introverted feeling (Fi)

_http://www.cognitiveprocesses.com/Cognitive-Functions/Introverted-Feeling.cfm

It is often hard to assign words to the values used to make introverted Feeling judgments since they are often associated with images, feeling tones, and gut reactions more than words.

As a cognitive process, it often serves as a filter for information that matches what is valued, wanted, or worth believing in.


There can be a continual weighing of the situational worth or importance of everything and a patient balancing of the core issues of peace and conflict in life's situations.

We engage in the process of introverted Feeling when a value is compromised and we think, "Sometimes, some things just have to be said."

On the other hand, most of the time this process works "in private" and is expressed through actions.

It helps us know when people are being fake or insincere or if they are basically good. It is like having an internal sense of the "essence" of a person or a project and reading fine distinctions among feeling tones.

Auxiliary: Extraverted intuition (Ne)

Extraverted iNtuiting involves noticing hidden meanings and interpreting them, often entertaining a wealth of possible interpretations from just one idea or interpreting what someone's behavior really means.

It also involves seeing things "as if," with various possible representations of reality.


Using this process, we can juggle many different ideas, thoughts, beliefs, and meanings in our mind at once with the possibility that they are all true.

This is like weaving themes and threads together.

We don't know the weave until a thought thread appears or is drawn out in the interaction of thoughts, often brought in from other contexts.

Thus a strategy or concept often emerges from the here-and-now interactions, not appearing as a whole beforehand.

Using this process we can really appreciate brainstorming and trust what emerges, enjoying imaginative play with scenarios and combining possibilities, using a kind of cross-contextual thinking.

Extraverted iNtuiting also can involve catalyzing people and extemporaneously shaping situations, spreading an atmosphere of change through emergent leadership.

Tertiary: Introverted sensing (Si)
Inferior: Extraverted thinking (Te)

You can see the description for the rest on the link.

All these are present in everyone I think, it's just that the degree of use may vary from person to person. For me, according to the tests, that is the hierarchy. I raarely use concrete terms because I don't usually think concretely unless a value of mine has been threatened. I think in feelings, images and possibilities, playing with different scenarios. It has always been like that, hence, a dreamer. Its interesting to see something that describes it. I know the above isn't reliable and that it is no excuse to act in whatever way that may be not warranted. But you have to admit, we all have a setting that we default to usually, hence the whole idea of 'personality'. And anyways, this always thinking in possibilities is what lead me here, to not accept the narrative of the PTB. I mean, what if they are lying? What if the conspiracy theorists are right? Somebody else with a different type, might find it hard to tolerate the idea depending on there circumstances. That is I believe a good side, but there is also a bad side to contend with.

Anyways, knowing the above, for me it is a challenge to not dance in the clouds when it comes to communicating with others lets say compared to a type that has those concrete communication traits in a dominant position.

It doesn't help that I was brought up in a house with different languages. I speak 2 languages, my parents speak about 7 all together, in my native country, there are over 40 ethnic groups all with different languages. I have never been able to zoom in on only 1. Until I was about 11 I spoke the national language, from then until about 13, I learnt english, then for the next 2 years, I mixed them both up as that is how kids communicated, then I moved to a country that speaks english 100% of the time. So I speak it about 80% of my time, at home, I shift and change depending on what language is being used. I have never been good at either english or my native language. How do I know, they were my weakest subjects at school. Don't get me wrong, I can communicate, just not to a degree that is high. I always have to think, I never know the right words, I get lost in the middle of sentences etc. I have heard it is good to know more than 1 language, but I don't think that is true all the time. I think I may have got the shorthand of the stick there.

Anyways, coming back in to the main point.

Knowing the above, I will make an effort and TRY to remember myself to AVOID defaulting to dancing in the clouds when communicating with others. I will think about the right words to use, if I can't find them, I will abandon the idea and move onto the next thing, try and find the right words to use and so on. To me, this will be bad, because it'll mean I abandon many ideas which I wish to test by presenting them to others but ultimately, it is about fine tuning ones system to adapt in whatever environment one might find themselves in. I say TRY as we know that remembering is a battle, maybe the biggest one.

I think that is a decent workable plan.

The whole personality type thing could be nonsense but to me it makes sense as it explains my dominant traits, I might not have seen them the way I can see a building, but i have felt them. The same way the existence and interference of hyperdimensional beings might make sense despite me never seeing one in any real concrete way. If someone was to say, right, 2 choices, you're on top of this building, you are going to jump, that is something that is going to happen. You'll either live or die. Right now, say, do you think hyperdimensional beings exist and have been interfering with us? Depending on your answer and what is actually objectively real, you will either live or die. I personally would say they do and jump.

So, you know where I stand.

 

[luke wilson]

Hi Obyvatel,

I have read the work on 4th way. ISOTM in full and all volumes of Gnosis. I have read all books by Castenado. I have been through the glossary many times.

Ok psychology books. I haven't read any in full. I'll be honest why. I can't find them in my bookstore. Ok, that was a lie, I don't go to bookstores, I wouldn't know where to look. I don't buy books online as I don't trust the security on my computer. It is about 8 years old. I never shop online.

I will get a new computer, been saving up for this, and I will start shopping online. Why can't I buy now? Because I don't know which to get. I am waiting for someone to come back who is currently away.

All the other books, you'll notice, are ALL freely available online.

I have read the wave in its entirety. I read many many articles as they are all freely available. I watch many many documentaries on such topics as they are all on youtube.

Ok there, you have the truth.

I know how important it is to pay your 'dues'. But I just don't trust my computer and online shopping. I am the person who will go to the cash machine get money out, to go to the shop to buy something and pay for it in cash. I am slowly moving away from that now that I work and the nearest cash machine is like over 10 minutes walk.

Regarding the feelings, if your question wasn't rhetorical,

Well, what you said stung. To me it was the feeling of being in the wrong. Not only that, being pathological - I know you made the distinction between the thinker and the thinking. Everything I am trying not to be. It was the "oh, I still haven't totally learnt how to communicate complex ideas in a way that doesn't receive a response of "what is he talking about?"' etc.

That was the intensity of the feeling. I didn't feel anger. I felt the sting. Then I felt sadness.

Then I knew no matter what I say, it wouldn't be alright. But I said it anyways just because I know you were zeroing in on me and this seemed like as good a time as any to start the inevitable dialogue. It was going to happen, so I made it happen quicker.

 

[Buddy]

Hi Buddy,

I am going to try to be concrete.

Thanks. Just so there's no mis-understanding of what is meant by 'concrete', I'll say that I'm fully capable of abstract thinking. FWIW, conceptually, I've been to the mountaintops with Kant and Hume (and probably blew a fuse in the process). The only problem I'm having with your topic post is being unable to see or trace connecting links between the Earth and the clouds. The reasons for that have already been stated.

I gained some recent insight by doing personality tests based on Jung's work. I did them more than once just to see. I know they aren't 100% reliable but the way I took the result is that it just offers an insight into what might be my default setting, what I have settled on as I have grown.

I came out an INFP.

I came out an ENFP, and I took the test several times over three months just to be sure and still got the same reading. I also find little or no fault with the descriptions in terms of a default mode. The only reason I even gave the stuff enough credibility to take the test is because of its popularity and it looked really interesting. As for what it all means to me now, well I've forgotten most of it already and don't even think about it. I had to look up my notes to even recall the exact letters of the assignment.

It doesn't help that I was brought up in a house with different languages. I speak 2 languages, my parents speak about 7 all together, in my native country, there are over 40 ethnic groups all with different languages. I have never been able to zoom in on only 1. Until I was about 11 I spoke the national language, from then until about 13, I learnt english, then for the next 2 years, I mixed them both up as that is how kids communicated, then I moved to a country that speaks english 100% of the time. So I speak it about 80% of my time, at home, I shift and change depending on what language is being used. I have never been good at either english or my native language. How do I know, they were my weakest subjects at school. Don't get me wrong, I can communicate, just not to a degree that is high. I always have to think, I never know the right words, I get lost in the middle of sentences etc. I have heard it is good to know more than 1 language, but I don't think that is true all the time. I think I may have got the shorthand of the stick there.

I think the meaning in the idea of it being good to speak more than one language is that it allows you to step outside the linguistic perception of one language and into another that 'divides up' the world a little differently. It changes your perceptual and cognitive patterns so that you're not always thinking about the way you think with the way you've always thought. That said, most Germanic languages today are so similar, it would be hard to prove the case, I think.

Knowing the above, I will make an effort and TRY to remember myself to AVOID defaulting to dancing in the clouds when communicating with others. I will think about the right words to use, if I can't find them, I will abandon the idea and move onto the next thing, try and find the right words to use and so on. To me, this will be bad, because it'll mean I abandon many ideas which I wish to test by presenting them to others but ultimately, it is about fine tuning ones system to adapt in whatever environment one might find themselves in. I say TRY as we know that remembering is a battle, maybe the biggest one.

I think that is a decent workable plan.

Just a reminder: I can perceive and think abstractly, and I think it's safe to say most everyone on here can, it's just that I think you need to make sure the abstractions are of something real (concrete) when the abstract concepts, themselves, are not the direct subject of your questions. Just my thought on it.

The whole personality type thing could be nonsense but to me it makes sense as it explains my dominant traits, I might not have seen them the way I can see a building, but i have felt them. The same way the existence and interference of hyperdimensional beings might make sense despite me never seeing one in any real concrete way. If someone was to say, right, 2 choices, you're on top of this building, you are going to jump, that is something that is going to happen. You'll either live or die. Right now, say, do you think hyperdimensional beings exist and have been interfering with us? Depending on your answer and what is actually objectively real, you will either live or die. I personally would say they do and jump.

So, you know where I stand.

Yes, you're Captain Kirk facing the Kobayashi Maru for the third time. And this time you really do win because you don't settle for the Matrixs' assertion of a 'no-win scenario'. Your reprogramming begins internally with the Work, no?