"Collapse" the movie, now available on Netflix Instantwatch

[Encephalon]

Given our recent discussion about global population and energy factors I thought I might post this.

 

"The mortal blow to human industrial civilization will be when oil prices spike and nobody can afford to buy that oil... and everything will just shut down."

 

[ATMA]

Entertainment? At a time like this???

[pamelais]

Given our recent discussion about global population and energy factors I thought I might post this.

 

"The mortal blow to human industrial civilization will be when oil prices spike and nobody can afford to buy that oil... and everything will just shut down."

 

 

 

here is a link to watch free online -full version

 

http://www.megavideo.com/?v=GE7JC37X

[Jetsun]

The bloke in that film is just projecting his own mental and psychological collapse onto the outside world.

[Encephalon]

The bloke in that film is just projecting his own mental and psychological collapse onto the outside world.

 

Did you actually watch the movie, or is the Ayahuasca still playing reruns in your head?

[JohnC]

or is the Ayahuasca still playing reruns in your head?

Get out of here with your passive aggressive bullshit.

Edited November 9, 2011 by JohnC

[Jetsun]

Did you actually watch the movie, or is the Ayahuasca still playing reruns in your head?

 

Yes I watched it a while ago, the man they interviewed for the film is obviously very psychologically unstable, can you not see that? he breaks down crying a few times and if you know about projection it's common to project your inner state onto the world. He says the collapse started with the banking crisis but so far the world economy is still ticking over, there is still time for it collapse mind you but it hasn't happened yet. The decline in normal petroleum may be offset by other forms like Shale Petroleum which they are discovering stores of all the time.

 

I'm not sure what Ayahuasca has to do with this unless it is some form of unnecessary personal dig at me for not swallowing the film and agreeing with it 100%

[Encephalon]

Yes I watched it a while ago, the man they interviewed for the film is obviously very psychologically unstable, can you not see that? he breaks down crying a few times and if you know about projection it's common to project your inner state onto the world. He says the collapse started with the banking crisis but so far the world economy is still ticking over, there is still time for it collapse mind you but it hasn't happened yet. The decline in normal petroleum may be offset by other forms like Shale Petroleum which they are discovering stores of all the time.

 

I'm not sure what Ayahuasca has to do with this unless it is some form of unnecessary personal dig at me for not swallowing the film and agreeing with it 100%

 

The man is crying because he's alarmed at the unfortunate destiny we seem to be creating for ourselves out of our failure to adapt to the reality of depleted oil supplies. If you've paid any attention to the subject at all you know that shale petroleum is a false promise. It's only been three years since the banking crisis, the economy is not getting better, we're likely headed for a double dip recession, and petroleum doesn't simply stop getting pumped; it gets too expensive to acquire or buy. That's not something that happens overnight.

 

My joke about Ayahuasca is that people have the ability to take their subjective drug experiences more seriously than a real, demonstrable phenomenon. It would seem that denial is for many people the preferred means of dealing with painful realities.

[Taomeow]

My joke about Ayahuasca is that people have the ability to take their subjective drug experiences more seriously than a real, demonstrable phenomenon. It would seem that denial is for many people the preferred means of dealing with painful realities.

 

Ain't that the truth. A few caveats though:

 

ayahuasca is not a drug; there's no such thing as ayahuasca addiction; denying subjective experiences on the basis of their not qualifying as "real, demonstrable phenomena" can be used in the manner you used it to deny, e.g., one's love for one's spouse or child, since loving someone is not a "demonstrable phenomenon" and is "real" only to the extent it is real in one's heart -- it is one of the phenomena of expanded consciousness (someone else, whose consciousness has not expanded to love YOUR spouse, may deny its reality if he so chooses, because the phenomenon is outside his own consciousness); so, do we belittle people who had mentioned at any point that they love somebody as having invalidated their objectivity?.. do we put them down whenever they happen to express an opinion we don't share?.. do we presume their opinions are fubar and they themselves are fair game for put-downs because they have had experiences we didn't?..

 

ayahuasca is used, more successfully than all of our medical establishments combined, to break drug addictions, among other things; people prone to addictive behaviors, a group you may or may not have some first-hand experience with, have nothing on those who successfully break their addictions instead of juggling them and substituting one for the next for the next for the next, and might do well not taking condescending stances toward them;

 

the drug of denial is, e.g., alcohol, and people who have first hand experience with its denial-inducing effects do tend to project them on non-drug-induced states of consciousness which they have no familiarity with, i.e. are exhibiting exactly the kind of behavior (projection of personal problems onto someone else) Jetsun was talking about. (There's another thread going on right now where chronic alcohol users teach ayahuasca initiates what their experience is "really" about, projecting what they know from their experience with alcohol on what the non-drug-user, ayahuasca initiate, knows about non-drug-induced consciousness phenomena; this seems to be pretty common behavior among addiction sufferers, but whether this behavior is induced by their drug of choice, alcohol, or is just a dictate of their idiosyncratic personality, I wouldn't presume to know);

 

and if I haven't convinced you yet that the joke was in poor taste, think back to your motivation for having a little fun at someone else's expense in this manner, maybe it will become apparent to you.

[Encephalon]

Ain't that the truth. A few caveats though:

 

ayahuasca is not a drug; there's no such thing as ayahuasca addiction; denying subjective experiences on the basis of their not qualifying as "real, demonstrable phenomena" can be used in the manner you used it to deny, e.g., one's love for one's spouse or child, since loving someone is not a "demonstrable phenomenon" and is "real" only to the extent it is real in one's heart -- it is one of the phenomena of expanded consciousness (someone else, whose consciousness has not expanded to love YOUR spouse, may deny its reality if he so chooses, because the phenomenon is outside his own consciousness); so, do we belittle people who had mentioned at any point that they love somebody as having invalidated their objectivity?.. do we put them down whenever they happen to express an opinion we don't share?.. do we presume their opinions are fubar and they themselves are fair game for put-downs because they have had experiences we didn't?..

 

ayahuasca is used, more successfully than all of our medical establishments combined, to break drug addictions, among other things; people prone to addictive behaviors, a group you may or may not have some first-hand experience with, have nothing on those who successfully break their addictions instead of juggling them and substituting one for the next for the next for the next, and might do well not taking condescending stances toward them;

 

the drug of denial is, e.g., alcohol, and people who have first hand experience with its denial-inducing effects do tend to project them on non-drug-induced states of consciousness which they have no familiarity with, i.e. are exhibiting exactly the kind of behavior (projection of personal problems onto someone else) Jetsun was talking about. (There's another thread going on right now where chronic alcohol users teach ayahuasca initiates what their experience is "really" about, projecting what they know from their experience with alcohol on what the non-drug-user, ayahuasca initiate, knows about non-drug-induced consciousness phenomena; this seems to be pretty common behavior among addiction sufferers, but whether this behavior is induced by their drug of choice, alcohol, or is just a dictate of their idiosyncratic personality, I wouldn't presume to know);

 

and if I haven't convinced you yet that the joke was in poor taste, think back to your motivation for having a little fun at someone else's expense in this manner, maybe it will become apparent to you.

 

Fair enough. You and I will always disagree about where we draw the line between the knowable and the unknowable, but I've always respected your ethical integrity, perhaps even more than my own.

 

I was coming off another night of poor sleep and what do I find but yet another person, whom I actually thought was kind of interesting given his amazing account of his Peruvian journey, being what I think is far too quick and dismissive of what Michael Ruppert is saying; Ruppert's track record is extraordinary and his grasp of the impending energy debt is completely consistent with thousands of others in the peak oil/geology community. He's not a basketcase because he grieves on camera, nor is he merely projecting his own personal impoverishment onto the world so a film crew can catch it for posterity's sake.

 

All this hit me after I've already heard several others in this forum (a forum not noted for its scientific literacy, btw) admonishing each other to not fret, the energy fairy will bless the planet with new sources and we'll be spared the ravages of our own gluttony and shortsightedness, as if we could simply project our energy utilization history of the Industrial Revolution into perpetuity - "Oh, we've always found energy, therefore we always will". So yeah, in that moment, I dishonored all the meditations and affirmations I have made over my many months to not be so belligerent online and hammered Jetsun for not having his doctorate in petroleum geology and subscribing to what is considered in many scientific circles to be wishful thinking on a global scale, to our ultimate detriment.

 

Here's lookin' at Step 4,

Scott

[Taomeow]

Fair enough. You and I will always disagree about where we draw the line between the knowable and the unknowable, but I've always respected your ethical integrity, perhaps even more than my own.

 

I was coming off another night of poor sleep and what do I find but yet another person, whom I actually thought was kind of interesting given his amazing account of his Peruvian journey, being what I think is far too quick and dismissive of what Michael Ruppert is saying; Ruppert's track record is extraordinary and his grasp of the impending energy debt is completely consistent with thousands of others in the peak oil/geology community. He's not a basketcase because he grieves on camera, nor is he merely projecting his own personal impoverishment onto the world so a film crew can catch it for posterity's sake.

 

All this hit me after I've already heard several others in this forum (a forum not noted for its scientific literacy, btw) admonishing each other to not fret, the energy fairy will bless the planet with new sources and we'll be spared the ravages of our own gluttony and shortsightedness, as if we could simply project our energy utilization history of the Industrial Revolution into perpetuity - "Oh, we've always found energy, therefore we always will". So yeah, in that moment, I dishonored all the meditations and affirmations I have made over my many months to not be so belligerent online and hammered Jetsun for not having his doctorate in petroleum geology and subscribing to what is considered in many scientific circles to be wishful thinking on a global scale, to our ultimate detriment.

 

Here's lookin' at Step 4,

Scott

 

FWIW, I don't doubt your integrity and hold you in high esteem for its consistent manifestations. The problem lies elsewhere between us. I don't think most people have a clue about anything at all, but whoever has a clue or believes he/she does either enjoys (or in my case laments) having it and tries to share it with those he/she believes don't have this particular clue, or, alternatively, grabs it as a baseball bat of intellectual, moral, educational, etc., superiority and hits those who he/she thinks don't have it on the head. That's what I usually object to.

 

FWIW, Russian research denies "peak oil" and geologists have been consistently finding deposits thereof based on the theoretical premises flowing quite scientifically from precisely this "denial." You don't read Russian, do you? I've worked for Russia's Ministry of Oil and Gas Industries for a number of years, reporting directly to its then Minister. If I "deny" peak oil, it's not necessarily a lack of education that is the reason why.

 

FWIW, I do believe the world is screwed, however I'm far more radical than you in my assessment of how and why exactly. Nothing is what it seems. I think anyone who begins to grasp this fact has to come to a place of tolerance of others' misconceptions. Out there, there's nothing but. A comfy compartmentalized pocket of "knowledge" some of us mistake for "truth and wisdom" could have been sewn onto your mind with crafty needles of deceit... you enjoy digging in that pocket for its treasures, I enjoy (or rather lament) tracing the tailor's crooked needles to their crooked manufacturers. Doesn't make me wrong on autopilot... or Jetsun, or anyone else. We're all doing the best we can.

[Encephalon]

FWIW, I do believe the world is screwed, however I'm far more radical than you in my assessment of how and why exactly. Nothing is what it seems. I think anyone who begins to grasp this fact has to come to a place of tolerance of others' misconceptions. Out there, there's nothing but. A comfy compartmentalized pocket of "knowledge" some of us mistake for "truth and wisdom" could have been sewn onto your mind with crafty needles of deceit... you enjoy digging in that pocket for its treasures, I enjoy (or rather lament) tracing the tailor's crooked needles to their crooked manufacturers. Doesn't make me wrong on autopilot... or Jetsun, or anyone else. We're all doing the best we can.

 

I am not suggesting that humans as they are wired now can ever come to grips with the broader shores of reality or even understand the machinations of power that govern our planet, but I believe we have tools at our immediate disposal that can reduce our predilection for delusion and deception. I believe that intellectual humility (Occam's razor), critical thinking, and the scientific method are sound principles for investigating the world and that they are frequently jettisoned in deference to emotionalism and superstition well before they've been adequately employed.

 

I dropped out of high school after my sophomore year and didn't pursue college until 36 years of age. I subscribed to plenty of metaphysical notions, but I don't ever recall rejecting plausible scientific theories in order to feel better about the future. I entertained half-baked notions of being rescued by a benevolent race of ETs but I never imagined that I had an adequate scientific base to reject legitimate theories. Having spent a decade climbing the academic ladder, I can still only see the bottom of the next ladder, but that's all I ever thought I could see (except perhaps when I was a teenager, the age when we all know everything).

 

A few hours later -

I just wanted to add what K and I were discussing in another thread. From my own educational evolution (as a geography major) I've learned that the world is far more comprehensible than my very active imagination first lead me to believe. Before I got around to taking the academic plunge I was convinced that the mysteries of the world were basically impenetrable, and that all ideas, whether it is was about electromagnetism or The Virgin Birth, were all ultimately unfathomable to the same degree. And the greatest joy I experienced was shedding false notions and assumptions and replacing them with more sensible explanations. It certainly made me feel less gullible, impressionable, and less vulnerable to authority. That was just one of the psychological advantages I witnessed as an older student. So, my angst with the anti-intellectualism I see championed in this forum has more to do with recognizing the price I paid in subscribing to notions that were false and misleading, even though I may have found them comforting.

Blah blah blah?

Edited November 10, 2011 by Encephalon

[pamelais]

Edited November 10, 2011 by pamelais

[Taomeow]

So, my angst with the anti-intellectualism I see championed in this forum

 

You know, your jabs actually distract from the deeper thoughts you offer in the same helping, and tend to monopolize the reader's attention. Is that their intended function? -- 'cause if it isn't, keep in mind that that's what actually happens -- your most convincing points can't get the full benefit of careful consideration because, you know, the jabs added in the same breath piss people off, and being pissed off makes more anti-intellectuals out of any crowd than just about anything else. Did you know that in someone engaged in a hostile verbal confrontation the IQ drops 30 points and does not recover for the next few hours, and sometimes days and even weeks? Scientific fact.

 

What is championed in this forum is outlined in the guidelines. I don't remember them mentioning anti-intellectualism specifically as a policy or goal. Nor have I seen much "anti-intellectualism" here. What I've seen is people of different educational, empirical, age, country, "rate of living life" backgrounds. I see people of varying IQ levels, emotional intelligence levels, coming from lives that have been hard or easy or over-easy on them, cushioned by privilege of a lucky birth or nearly demolished and stretched to the outer limits of what a human being can endure, with most falling somewhere in the middle between the extremes but not all, coming here and talking to each other about things of interest to them at this particular moment. There's no intellectual or ideational prerequisites for participation posted or enforced. I too occasionally feel that too many people say too many dumb things and get frustrated and discouraged, but the funny thing is, your "dumb things" and mine do not coincide. I have never been undereducated so I don't know what it's like to see the light of the scientific method late in the game -- maybe it is indeed better than to never see it at all, but when are you going to get over it? I had Ph.D.s in four generations that went before, and was asked to spell-check my father's Ph.D. thesis in thermodynamics when I was 10. I got over it.

[Jetsun]

I have no problem with engaging in intellectual debate but that film is so over dramatic and emotionally charged to try to make people fearful about the situation that it is hardly a reliable source to use, it's emotional tone feels more like propaganda to me, they even call Michael Ruppert a prophet like he can see our terrible future as concrete fact, but the reality is that he is fixated on the worst possible outcome and he doesn't know it as fact at all. He presents one outcome which hasn't come true yet and to get fearful and stressed about a future which is yet to happen is to create unnecessary suffering for yourself, that is one of the basic lessons of meditation our mind projects fears to the future which may not become real and that process just makes our current moment more stressful and difficult.

 

You can call that burying your head in the sand if you like but I accept the collapse of our current world situation as a possibility but it's not something I'm going to get emotionally charged about until it actually happens or I will just live in fear my whole life as there is always a potential catastrophe around the corner, before it was nuclear power, communism, terrorism etc just watch the news there are a thousand things to get scared about and if you approach it without a level of detachment it it will make you crazy. The system wants you afraid of the future because then you are controllable and predictable so I think you are better off relaxing about the situation and have faith that things will be fine.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Jetsun

[Encephalon]

[Encephalon]

You know, your jabs actually distract from the deeper thoughts you offer in the same helping, and tend to monopolize the reader's attention. Is that their intended function? -- 'cause if it isn't, keep in mind that that's what actually happens -- your most convincing points can't get the full benefit of careful consideration because, you know, the jabs added in the same breath piss people off, and being pissed off makes more anti-intellectuals out of any crowd than just about anything else. Did you know that in someone engaged in a hostile verbal confrontation the IQ drops 30 points and does not recover for the next few hours, and sometimes days and even weeks? Scientific fact.

 

What is championed in this forum is outlined in the guidelines. I don't remember them mentioning anti-intellectualism specifically as a policy or goal. Nor have I seen much "anti-intellectualism" here. What I've seen is people of different educational, empirical, age, country, "rate of living life" backgrounds. I see people of varying IQ levels, emotional intelligence levels, coming from lives that have been hard or easy or over-easy on them, cushioned by privilege of a lucky birth or nearly demolished and stretched to the outer limits of what a human being can endure, with most falling somewhere in the middle between the extremes but not all, coming here and talking to each other about things of interest to them at this particular moment. There's no intellectual or ideational prerequisites for participation posted or enforced. I too occasionally feel that too many people say too many dumb things and get frustrated and discouraged, but the funny thing is, your "dumb things" and mine do not coincide. I have never been undereducated so I don't know what it's like to see the light of the scientific method late in the game -- maybe it is indeed better than to never see it at all, but when are you going to get over it? I had Ph.D.s in four generations that went before, and was asked to spell-check my father's Ph.D. thesis in thermodynamics when I was 10. I got over it.

 

Some good points. My job as I see it is to reevaluate the tenet of Right Speech and employ this in all my affairs. I was going to attempt an investigation of what constitutes anti-intellectualism but decided against it, since it's all relative, not to mention intensely personal. It's incumbent upon me to find a board that suits my wavelengths, so I will adjust accordingly, and remind myself that the word "equanimity" is still in the vocabulary.

[Jetsun]

[JustARandomPanda]

FWIW, Russian research denies "peak oil" and geologists have been consistently finding deposits thereof based on the theoretical premises flowing quite scientifically from precisely this "denial." You don't read Russian, do you? I've worked for Russia's Ministry of Oil and Gas Industries for a number of years, reporting directly to its then Minister. If I "deny" peak oil, it's not necessarily a lack of education that is the reason why.

 

Yes. This is what I've been reading about too. Apparently the supposedly "scientifically discredited" abiotic theory of oil is being used successfully by the Russians in finding and exploiting new oil fields (ie. Abiotic - that oil does not come from dead plants but rather that it is continuously being created anew via reactions deep within the earth's mantle and is thus a continually replenishing source of energy). If the abiotic theory turns out to be true it's going to turn the "peak oil" theory on it's head. It's also going to make it a lot harder to bring other alternative energy sources online as oil will never run so low that the price skyrockets years long enough to allow these alternative sources a chance to deploy widely at competitive costs.

 

Whereas drilling in the West has 9 dry wells for every one that has success the Russians are averaging 6-7 new active wells for every 10 drilled. Apparently they were successful enough at it that Cheney went to Russia on behalf of his employers (this was prior to him becoming Vice President) to try to get the Russians to share their technology. Supposedly the Russians blew them off. Which makes economic sense to me. Why hand over keys to your economic future to companies that will later become your competitors?

[gendao]

I dig Mike Ruppert. He's a very ballsy whistleblower who publically put the C0caine lmport Agency on blast back in 1996:

Which was quietly proven 12 years later when a ClA jet crashed carrying 4 tons of white gold. Obviously, our mainstream media chose not to cover either story..SHHHH!!!

Anyhow, I don't blame him for being passionate. He has a Cassandra Complex like Ron Paul, and is desperately trying to sound the alarm while the mass media band just keeps playing on...

 

Frankly, we need a LOT MORE Mike Rupperts...

Edited November 12, 2011 by vortex

[Encephalon]

Yes. This is what I've been reading about too. Apparently the supposedly "scientifically discredited" abiotic theory of oil is being used successfully by the Russians in finding and exploiting new oil fields (ie. Abiotic - that oil does not come from dead plants but rather that it is continuously being created anew via reactions deep within the earth's mantle and is thus a continually replenishing source of energy). If the abiotic theory turns out to be true it's going to turn the "peak oil" theory on it's head. It's also going to make it a lot harder to bring other alternative energy sources online as oil will never run so low that the price skyrockets years long enough to allow these alternative sources a chance to deploy widely at competitive costs.

 

Whereas drilling in the West has 9 dry wells for every one that has success the Russians are averaging 6-7 new active wells for every 10 drilled. Apparently they were successful enough at it that Cheney went to Russia on behalf of his employers (this was prior to him becoming Vice President) to try to get the Russians to share their technology. Supposedly the Russians blew them off. Which makes economic sense to me. Why hand over keys to your economic future to companies that will later become your competitors?

 

 

I'd like some assistance in finding any online source that legitimates the abiotic oil theory. I've used The Oildrum and the PostCarbon Institute to stay abreast of the global energy issues and I can't find a single article online that supports this notion.

 

http://www.angelfire.com/planet/eatingfossilfuels/NoFreeLunch-prelude.pdf

[Taomeow]

I'd like some assistance in finding any online source that legitimates the abiotic oil theory. I've used The Oildrum and the PostCarbon Institute to stay abreast of the global energy issues and I can't find a single article online that supports this notion.

 

http://www.angelfire...nch-prelude.pdf

 

http://www.gasresources.net/Introduction.htm

[Encephalon]

[Taomeow]

Yeah, I saw this, an intro of the theory, but it doesn't rise to the level of proof.

 

Am I psychic or am I chopped liver. I saw this coming from you.

 

Are you an expert in the field? How do you prove that it doesn't rise to the level of proof -- with scientific proof or via repeating the repeaters who told you so?

 

Actually, it doesn't matter and won't change anything. Something else is going on here -- and not only with you.

 

I remember reading a sci-fi novel, so long ago that by now I don't remember either the author or the title, that impressed me forever with one image in the end that contained the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Basically, the protagonists were stuck in an induced artificial mind-altering field that distorted everything they perceived. They were on earth in the range of this field but they believed that as a result of some scientific experiment they participated in they'd been thrown onto some other planet way in deep space, a planet whose laws of physics were different. They explored and described them eventually, creating the science of this world in line with what they perceived, theories, practices, everything very elaborate, a whole civilization designed accordingly. In their perceived world, e.g., the sun was a disc, visibly spinning in the sky like a giant top, due to some space distortions as they thought, which they measured and described scientifically. They lived in isolation for a few generations, then they were discovered. Turned out some crazy scientist conducted an experiment, somewhere in the uninhabited parts of the earth, with a group of his theories' followers, and once the machine was turned on and everybody's perceptions distorted, they believed -- well, they believed what they perceived, but their perceptions themselves were secondary, artificially induced, and yet all the considerable powers of their intellects were put to the task of coming up with explanations and justifications for this INDUCED reality, brushing off EVERYTHING that didn't conform. They lived hard, unhealthy lives and died before their time, generation after generation, but they designed a world that was "working" -- on the premises that were faulty from the start, but "functional," not the best of all possible worlds but the only one they knew how to live in.

 

Then, when they were discovered and everything that happened to them got revealed (because in the greater world it was common knowledge that something went awry with a group of scientists following a particular doctrine a few generations ago), the 'normals' who showed up explained the deal to everybody and turned off the machine inducing the mind-altering (and "objective" reality-altering) perceptions. Most people in the group recovered -- some fast, some gradually -- and started perceiving the world as it is minus the induced distortion for the fist time. The laws of physics themselves were different now, and the first taste of normality was sweet... but not for everybody. The main protagonist -- too invested in his mission in the distorted world, too convinced, too smart, too you-can't-fool-me, too... too much a fanatic of his own beliefs to believe they weren't his own... still saw the DISC of the sun spinning at a great speed in the sky, like he always had. There was no field acting on him anymore -- and yet there was no convincing him. He had internalized the machine and embodied it. He was now generating the distortions of reality independently of the outside influences. No amount of proof could ever prove anything to him anymore. Once he saw the disc, he would always see the disc.

[Encephalon]

Am I psychic or am I chopped liver. I saw this coming from you.

 

Are you an expert in the field? How do you prove that it doesn't rise to the level of proof -- with scientific proof or via repeating the repeaters who told you so?

 

Actually, it doesn't matter and won't change anything. Something else is going on here -- and not only with you.

 

I remember reading a sci-fi novel, so long ago that by now I don't remember either the author or the title, that impressed me forever with one image in the end that contained the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

 

Basically, the protagonists were stuck in an induced artificial mind-altering field that distorted everything they perceived. They were on earth in the range of this field but they believed that as a result of some scientific experiment they participated in they'd been thrown onto some other planet way in deep space, a planet whose laws of physics were different. They explored and described them eventually, creating the science of this world in line with what they perceived, theories, practices, everything very elaborate, a whole civilization designed accordingly. In their perceived world, e.g., the sun was a disc, visibly spinning in the sky like a giant top, due to some space distortions as they thought, which they measured and described scientifically. They lived in isolation for a few generations, then they were discovered. Turned out some crazy scientist conducted an experiment, somewhere in the uninhabited parts of the earth, with a group of his theories' followers, and once the machine was turned on and everybody's perceptions distorted, they believed -- well, they believed what they perceived, but their perceptions themselves were secondary, artificially induced, and yet all the considerable powers of their intellects were put to the task of coming up with explanations and justifications for this INDUCED reality, brushing off EVERYTHING that didn't conform. They lived hard, unhealthy lives and died before their time, generation after generation, but they designed a world that was "working" -- on the premises that were faulty from the start, but "functional," not the best of all possible worlds but the only one they knew how to live in.

 

Then, when they were discovered and everything that happened to them got revealed (because in the greater world it was common knowledge that something went awry with a group of scientists following a particular doctrine a few generations ago), the 'normals' who showed up explained the deal to everybody and turned off the machine inducing the mind-altering (and "objective" reality-altering) perceptions. Most people in the group recovered -- some fast, some gradually -- and started perceiving the world as it is minus the induced distortion for the fist time. The laws of physics themselves were different now, and the first taste of normality was sweet... but not for everybody. The main protagonist -- too invested in his mission in the distorted world, too convinced, too smart, too you-can't-fool-me, too... too much a fanatic of his own beliefs to believe they weren't his own... still saw the DISC of the sun spinning at a great speed in the sky, like he always had. There was no field acting on him anymore -- and yet there was no convincing him. He had internalized the machine and embodied it. He was now generating the distortions of reality independently of the outside influences. No amount of proof could ever prove anything to him anymore. Once he saw the disc, he would always see the disc.

 

Right.

 

I suppose we're at that stage where we start impugning each other's ability to think independently. I think I'll bail now and spare us both the hassle.

All the best,

Scott