Color said:
Well, there's no point in writing anything anymore, since the guy already labeled me and Deckard as 'Lobaczewski and conspiracy theories followers and members of the cult, with no tolerance for other people's opinions', etc...
Hmmm... in other words, the guy makes a post based on inaccuracies and assumptions - no facts - declares that to be reality by fiat. And THEN, when someone points out the REALITY based on FACTS, they are suddenly "members of a cult" and "conspiracy theorists"!!!
Geeze, where have we seen that kind of behavior before?
Remember this thing called "truth."
Words are means by which Human Beings communicate and we call it a language. In order to communicate, you have to have an understanding of the words you use and that is where the problem arises.
The meanings of most of the words we use were learned in context with other words, and we assume from this that we know the meaning of the word. When you do this, and your understanding of a word is the same as its real meaning, no problem arises, However, when what you assume the meaning of a word is does NOT agree with the true meaning of the word, then misunderstanding is the result.
It is most rewarding to understand the words; by understanding, the true meaning of the word is meant. The best sources for obtaining this information are dictionaries, encyclopedias and dictionaries in OTHER languages."
What mystic Karl von Eckartshausen wrote above would have been true in his day and time and even 60 or so years ago in our own time. However, it is no longer true. As the hero, V, in the movie “V For Vendetta” said:
Words offer the means to meaning, and for those who will listen, the enunciation of truth.
Later in the movie, the character Valerie says in a flashback:
I remember how the meaning of words began to change. How unfamiliar words like "collateral" and "rendition" became frightening, while things like Norsefire and the Articles of Allegiance became powerful. I remember how "different" became dangerous. I still don't understand it, why they hate us so much.
Anyone familiar with George Orwell’s 1984 knows that he wrote about the idea that controlling a people’s definition of words, controlling the meanings that those words evoke in the minds of the general public, is integral to achieving actual thought control of the populace.
A forum member wrote a piece for SOTT last year which I have edited a bit below:
A close examination of the what is happening in the present time – even including the field of metaphysics and paranormal research - demonstrates a rather rapid and seemingly deliberate twisting and perverting of word meanings in the public consciousness. This is accomplished by altering, the very definitions of key words in our minds via the media and this is then reflected in the dictionaries we turn to when we wish to clarify terms that seem ambiguous or "off" when we hear them used by pundits in the corporate media.
Although a gradual alteration in spelling, pronunciation and meanings of words does occur naturally in any language – a process known as linguistic drift - it does not normally happen as rapidly as can be observed today. The speed with which this is occurring strongly suggests intent to control meanings and thereby, thought.
In the past 20 years, many words dealing with politically, sociologically and spiritually loaded concepts – including supernatural communication techniques - have been re-defined by media usage to convey quite different ideas from the original. Tertiary definitions have moved up rapidly in the dictionary’s lists of definitions, becoming secondary, even primary, and some of the original, primary definitions have vanished completely! For many words, only the "revised" definitions remain.
Let's take an example: the word "cult." You would certainly not expect such a word to be applied to a group that promotes the scientific examination of ideas and beliefs, would you?
Of course not!
But it is here that we discover an interesting thing: You see, the definition of the word "cult" is not precisely the same now as it was as recently as 30 years ago or even 10 years ago! The process of redefinition of the word “cult” is currently underway and the definition that we all know well is rapidly fading on the page. The word “cult” has begun to take on meanings that have political implications! "A group with a shared central belief that is far enough removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms, within a society, as to set it apart therefrom." This easily leads to the perception that anyone or anything "different" from what is prescribed to be politically correct, must not only be wrong, but must be labeled as such – and the word “cult” is being adjusted for that purpose.
It is a certainty that Giordano Bruno, Galileo, and Copernicus had a "shared central belief" that the earth revolved around the sun, and this idea was far removed from the mainstream religious, moral or behavioral norms of the society that was dominated by the Catholic Church. Giordano was not accused of belonging to a “cult,” instead he was accused of being a heretic and was burned at the stake. Now, of course, we know that he was right all along.
Jesus of Nazareth and his disciples also had a "shared central belief" that was far removed from the "mainstream religious, moral and even behavioral norms" of the society of their time. Jesus was accused of being possessed by Beelzebul because he performed exorcisms.
In social-scientific analyses, accusations such as “cult” or “heretic” or “possessed by demons” can be described as negative labels, while “good” titles of prominence (saint, statesman, holy) can be identified as positive labels.
Both negative and positive labels are social weapons whose purpose is to identify and control behavior that is outside the established range of what is called normal. Of course, one is entitled to ask just WHO establishes what is considered normal, how and why?
The fact is, Jesus was labeled a deviant by the culture of his time and social-scientific analysis of the matter indicates that it was political!
…[T]the accusation of being possessed by Beelzebul belongs to a broader strategy whose purpose was to discredit Jesus, to declare him an outsider in his society, and to assign him a new [negative] identity. … Jesus' exorcisms were perceived as threatening to the governing elite and their retainers…. Jesus was the first in the ancient Mediterranean world to give such a prominent place to exorcisms in his activity.
The responses of Jesus to the accusation of casting out demons by the power of Beelzebul reveal that he never accepted this interpretation. He fought against it in every possible way and unveiled the real meaning and purpose of his exorcisms. Coherent with his culture's perspective on nature, which included non-visible, person-like beings to explain certain effects, Jesus explained that he was possessed by the Spirit of God and that in his dealings with those possessed by demons he was engaged in a cosmic war against Satan. Victory over Satan was the sign of the dawning of God's rule. The sign of the coming of God's reign was the restoration to society of those who were at the margins. Jesus called them to be part of a new family together with him and his followers, and this was highly disruptive. (Guijarro, Santiago. "The politics of exorcism: Jesus' reaction to negative labels in the Beelzebul controversy." Biblical Theology Bulletin 29.3 (Fall 1999): 118(13). Expanded Academic ASAP. Gale. Intercollege. 13 Nov. 2007)
In the present day, the National Security State has assumed the role of the Jewish Pharisees who accused Jesus of Nazareth of being a revolutionary not to mention the Catholic Church during the crusades and the Inquisition.
Thus, any group that adheres to a strong central tenet that ALL statements claiming to be "true" or, especially, "the Truth" – including statements made by politicians - should be examined and verified by scientific investigation can be labeled a "cult" by the political Powers That Be.
Any group that refuses to blindly follow and accept everything that is supposedly established by the Official Culture as defined by politically shaped academia can be labeled a "cult" by a society seeking to find stability under the rule of any given political Powers That Be.
Any group that disagrees with the idea that subjective "faith" is a valid criteria for charting the course of an entire society toward global destruction, can be labeled a cult.
Back to what the forum member had to say about the matter:
The definition of the word "cult" has been shifted to a meaning that is terrifyingly lax and malleable, allowing anyone or any group that dares to openly disagree with society or with the political Powers That be to be labeled a "cult." Any group of dissenters can be branded as a "cult."
What better means of making dissent easily dismissible by a non-thinking majority than to label them, one and all, in the new "group-think", as "cults"? And certainly, after having been exposed by vast media campaigns to the dangers of “cults” such as Jonestown, Waco, The Solar Temple and Heaven’s Gate, when the word “cult” is used, the automatic image conjured in the mind of the listener is that of brainwashed, mind-controlled zombies following some kind of deranged and evil Svengali.
At this moment in time, when the process of altering the very meaning of the word is not yet complete, we can observe the manipulation in real time. We can also resist this stealing of our words if we so choose.
I have every reason to believe that this politically inspired definition of the word “cult”, having arisen as recently as within the past 30 years, will soon be listed in dictionaries as the primary definition. At the same time, the real, religiously and overtly politically defined meanings will be reduced in emphasis or eliminated.
And so, the problem is that we must be wary of the dictionaries we use when we look up the "correct" definition and usage of a word. Chances are, if you are using a dictionary that was compiled by American academicians and printed by an American publishing house within the past ten years, you are consulting a volume that has been "verified" and assembled by the very “politically correct authorities” who are implicated in the stealing of the old, established definitions. If it seems to you that there are a number of words in use today that have taken on either extra, new, or especially nearly opposite meanings from the ones you first learned for those words when you were young, perhaps it is not just your own forgetfulness, or that you misunderstood the definition(s) when you first learned the word, you aren't losing your mind.
Now, let us come back to the word that concerns us: Truth. As Ark wrote elsewhere on the forum:
Ark said:
In ordinary use, the word “true” means that a certain assertion corresponds to the facts. “True” means that there is a valid correspondence between a representation of something and the actual something itself. One example that can be easily understood is that of a map. If a map is drawn to scale and the indicators of direction (N, S, E, W) are given accurately, the lines and contours of the features of the landscape represented well, we can say that the map is "true to geography" because "the lines of the plan exhibit approximately the same features that exist on the ground, though in two dimensions. A painting is said to be "true to life" if it accurately shows to any viewer how something really looks when you see it with your eyes though, again, it is two-dimensional.
In short, from my point of view, Truth involves two systems linked by a mapping"; Truth is Objectivity – or as objective you can get with the data to hand.
But here in this forum, and in Lobaczewski's book, we talk about many things that are not so simple as maps and paintings which you can see with your eyes and often compare to the real things they are supposed to represent. We talk about such ideas, things such as good and evil, psychological states, claims that one or another person may make about different events they say they have special knowledge about, and so on.
So, at this point, we must move into the realm of philosophy.
Ark said:
Assume that there is such a thing as "the Universe'. (If you reject this assumption, then all that I am going to say below is useless so just close the browser and go have a beer.)
Now, "We" are part of this Universe, but only a small part. Our perception of the world, our concepts, our vocabulary, our programming, both genetically conditioned and that which is modified or built from scratch by our interactions with what we call the "external world" (family, society, etc), carry the stamp of this "smallness" of us vis a vis the greatness of the Universe. We are, essentially, at the mercy of many forces around us, many influences, from birth, over which we have no control and which help to shape our characters and how we view the world.
Our human natures are often scarred by the chaos and uncertainty around us, the results of our history, the history of life and the development of our civilization.
As a result, it is very difficult to be objective.
Sometimes we are objective when we judge others, especially when we are not emotionally influenced, but then we have difficulty being objective about ourselves. On the other hand, sometimes we see only too well our own faults and failings, but have problems seeing the faults of those we love, or seeing through the lies around us. We, as human beings, often have great difficulty believing that people, sometimes those closest to us, can lie deliberately. This is the way adults sometimes see their children or their spouses. There is no objectivity in such a perception.
Both cases happen not only in our relations with our fellow men, with society, but also concerning our perception and our grasp of the material world, of the world of concepts, of the world of "knowledge".
We are also burdened with the problem of anthropomorphism which may distort our perception of the world. It is necessary to analyze this problem as well.
To see "objectively" is to see the Universe the same way the Universe is seeing itself; that is to see on a scale that goes beyond our genetically determined interests, our experiences, our small size in space and time, and to do this “in the space of knowledge".
One of the major mechanisms that distorts our objectivity is “belief.”
Our beliefs define who and what we are. Even if nothing bad happens as a result of an erroneous conviction, holding a strong belief without evidence is irresponsible and not worthy of a sincere human being who seeks to be truthful and decent.
The person who holds a belief that is formed without careful and patient investigation has failed in his or her duty to life itself, his children, and the future. Any case of believing for faulty reasons has the potential to infect and corrupt the understanding available to all, and such acts not only weaken our critical faculties, carelessness about evidence leads to carelessness about the truth itself. You can be a liar and full of lies with the best of intentions.
We get many of our beliefs from our families and society. William Clifford referred to socially-held beliefs as an heirloom; a sacred trust.
Obviously, no one person can individually research every generally held belief that we are heir to in our world. We must, to a great extent, rely on some things that are “generally known” as being true. History is a case in point. Now, of course, for me, personally, discovering the facts of history has been a consuming passion for all my life, but in most cases, the only way I can acquire evidence that any event actually happened is to read a book that records a series of facts. But I am always aware that the author of such books got their information from somewhere else, and I want to know where and how they got it and what is the level of reliance that can be placed on the source. Working this way can be slow and tedious, but in the end, it is worth it.
Nevertheless, we cannot escape the fact that many of our justifications for believing anything to be true depend a great deal on other people.
This helps reinforce Clifford's point that the social fabric of belief is a social trust. We are constantly in the position of having to believe things on no more evidence than the fact that they are widely believed. And we know: things that are widely believed -- even things that are widely believed by experts -- may be false.
But, in specific cases such as the case of this individual who is making claims based on false information and does not care to consider the facts, this is a level of irresponsibility that is difficult to understand without considering pathology. In a way he reminds me of Aristotle who asserted that men and women have different numbers of teeth. He didn’t check by counting the number of teeth in the mouths of a great many people; he merely provided long arguments as to why things ought to be this way. His method was obviously unreliable: you can’t demonstrate truth with argument; what is needed is proof, evidence, repeated observations, and so on.
Was Aristotle exhibiting pathology?
Well, one can hardly understand why he wouldn't bother to just ask a few people to open their mouths and let him count.
One can hardly understand why this guy writing lies about Lobaczewski and Color and Deckard didn't bother to actually read Lobaczewski's book before pronouncing on it.
In short, looks to me like this is typical deviant behavior: accusing others of what you are yourself.
Which leads to the question: since he claims that Lobaczewski suggested the killing of al psychopaths, perhaps he is revealing the intentions of psychopaths toward normal humans?
