Russian colony of the United States

[Karl]

Karl, I really don't know what to say except, to straighten out some versions of history floating out there, I wouldn't even know where to start.  With the Roman empire?.. Babylon?..  dinosaurs?...  trilobites?.. 

 

I think I'm going to throw in the towel once and for all.  History, geography, politics -- anything inhabited by humans -- is a hopeless subject for discussions.  Totally disheartening.  I think I'll limit myself to posting pictures of cute cats and descriptions of inanimate objects.

 

There are millions of versions of history which are all opinioniated unless only the dry facts are quoted. I like Patrick J Buchanan -Churchill, Hitler and the unnecessary war.

 

There is no need to defer to posting cute cat pictures.

[zerostao]

Karl, I really don't know what to say except, to straighten out some versions of history floating out there, I wouldn't even know where to start.  With the Roman empire?.. Babylon?..  dinosaurs?...  trilobites?.. 

 

I think I'm going to throw in the towel once and for all.  History, geography, politics -- anything inhabited by humans -- is a hopeless subject for discussions.  Totally disheartening.  I think I'll limit myself to posting pictures of cute cats and descriptions of inanimate objects.

images are useful, symbols are better lanuage, words and any language is merely symbolism anyways, arbitrary at that. words have different meanings, a lot is taken out of context, the sender of the message once it is sent has no control over the message the receiver decides upon. a moment before i read this post, on another current thread, i resorted to posting cartoon images of a cute coyote,, one i can relate to  haha

[Stosh]

Karl, I really don't know what to say except, to straighten out some versions of history floating out there, I wouldn't even know where to start.  With the Roman empire?.. Babylon?..  dinosaurs?...  trilobites?.. 

 

I think I'm going to throw in the towel once and for all.  History, geography, politics -- anything inhabited by humans -- is a hopeless subject for discussions.  Totally disheartening.  I think I'll limit myself to posting pictures of cute cats and descriptions of inanimate objects.

We havent always seen from the same window, but even I know you have more to offer than pix of cats ,,when youre rested. Politics, geography , empires, theyre really not important,, though Im sure youve soaked up a lot even just casually glancing at these things,, theyre remote.. theres a thousand differing views to contend with , and all the sources are subjective. Someone elses subjective projects. Approaching stuff like that tends to be an energetic drain ( to borrow some conceptry I don't usually entertain ) and while one might not begrudge sharing on that material,, one can forget their own restorative sources. Trilobites?

[gendao]

Thank you.

 

OK, if you want to look for the real answers, you may want to start digging somewhat deep -- way deep...   the underwater part of this iceberg is 180 years old by a very conservative estimate -- so it's hard for me to tell where exactly one needs to start waving one's hands before one's mind's eye to dispel the fog.  Maybe start with a few key figures in the making of the new capitalist Russia and work it out backward?..  Here's some of them (by far not the only ones, just the ones that came in handy via a bookmark I happened to have saved):  (The honorable Arthur Hartman, in case the face is not familiar, was the US ambassador to the USSR under Reagan.  The Russians are a couple of movers and shakers who neither moved nor shook anything of their own accord.)

 

[Astral Monk]

Only humans have reasoning, only humans have free will and therefore the choice of morality.

 

This seems at best unverifiable and at worst fraudulent.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

.

 

The rights are there on the Island. It is the right of ownership of your body/mind and to keep the fruits of your own, honest productive effort. Anything that interferes with that is a trespass and aggression.

 

There are no 'rights' in the absence of social structure, just as there is no private language.

 

A person could yell all day about hesh rights to no avail--nature doesnt hear or respond. The result is eat or be eaten, as usual.

 

A 'right' is a social agreement, not a fact about existence of certain types of beings. It is attended by further agreed upon consequences for transgression, and a host of good faith assumptions about all parties involved.

 

Meanwhile, the concept that one can own one's body or worse still--have a right to so own it (inplying that your ownership must be verifiable somehow), is absurd.

 

We are our body--we do not merely employ it from time to time. And alone against the tide of Nature we can only live in and through it with no recourse to a greater power than these ten fingers and ten toes.

 

There is no owner and nothing to own.

 

8)

[Karl]

There are no 'rights' in the absence of social structure, just as there is no private language.

A person could yell all day about hesh rights to no avail--nature doesnt hear or respond. The result is eat or be eaten, as usual.

A 'right' is a social agreement, not a fact about existence of certain types of beings. It is attended by further agreed upon consequences for transgression, and a host of good faith assumptions about all parties involved.

Meanwhile, the concept that one can own one's body or worse still--have a right to so own it (inplying that your ownership must be verifiable somehow), is absurd.

We are our body--we do not merely employ it from time to time. And alone against the tide of Nature we can only live in and through it with no recourse to a greater power than these ten fingers and ten toes.

There is no owner and nothing to own.

8)

How are you writing this then ?

Edited September 1, 2015 by Karl

[Astral Monk]

How are you writing this then ?

These things write themselves

 

8)

[Taomeow]

There are no 'rights' in the absence of social structure, just as there is no private language.

 

A person could yell all day about hesh rights to no avail--nature doesnt hear or respond. The result is eat or be eaten, as usual.

 

A 'right' is a social agreement, not a fact about existence of certain types of beings. It is attended by further agreed upon consequences for transgression, and a host of good faith assumptions about all parties involved.

 

Meanwhile, the concept that one can own one's body or worse still--have a right to so own it (inplying that your ownership must be verifiable somehow), is absurd.

 

We are our body--we do not merely employ it from time to time. And alone against the tide of Nature we can only live in and through it with no recourse to a greater power than these ten fingers and ten toes.

 

There is no owner and nothing to own.

 

8)

 

The idea of no rights is spot on. 

 

We are our body is correct too.

 

However, there's nothing to own only in terms of "things."  If we think of the world as processes, there is something to own.  We own our own behavior.

 

At least "normal" humans must.  "The devil made me do it," "I was only following orders," "I have the mandate of Heaven," and all similar ways to disown one's own behavior and ascribe it to someone else pulling one's puppet strings is exceedingly widespread, but entirely abnormal.  Although not necessarily untrue.  One of the most painful losses a "civilized" human has sustained is the loss of 99% of behaviors to call one's own. 

 

I just interacted with a woman who sort of sneezed but suppressed it.  Someone in her past whose puppet strings she has iinternalized as "who I am" had taught her that she can't quite sneeze in public, it's somehow not OK.  When she was about to sneeze, she held her nose tightly and made this choking noise into her palm.  She chose -- was somehow conditioned to choose -- a behavior that proclaims, "I can't let my body control itself.  And since I am my body, it means I can't let myself control myself, I need an authority to authorize what my body does or does not do.  I need a mommy and a daddy forever, I will never grow up to own my own behavior." 

[zerostao]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

[Taomeow]

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/121967/whats-really-going-trade-services-agreement

 

 Another "countries don't matter anymore" moment.  "1984" was not a prophecy, it was a template.  Oceania, Eurasia and Eastasia are shaping themselves up for a perpetual war.  First we have Oceania at war with Eurasia.  Then we'll have Oceania at war with Eastasia.  At times, Eastasia and Eurasia will be at war with each other.  But Oceania will always be at war with one of them.  That's the template.  The leaked agreement shapes Oceania more distinctly -- Eurasia and Eastasia are still a work in progress, but Oceania is almost complete.       

[Astral Monk]

The idea of no rights is spot on.

 

We are our body is correct too.

 

However, there's nothing to own only in terms of "things." If we think of the world as processes, there is something to own. We own our own behavior.

 

This doesnt follow unless there is an owner.

 

If the world is processes then how can there be a stable non-processes point that also somehow is responsible for all processes?

 

This is the problem of responsibility. It disappears into the stream of causality, and no point can be drawn out or held apart except arbitrarily.

 

The idea of ownership requires a stable immutable Self that can make claims on things. But these things are always outside said Self, hence, no claim made upon them is ever valid. Claims are only the violent enforcement of will--the imposition of power over external circumstances and beings.

 

And, once you strip away all those parts of the Self that are conditioned by external circumstances, you are left with literally nothing. Thus, even the idea of owning behaviours is an idea of violently imposing a will upon the phenomenal world.

 

One can choose to take responsibilty, but this is a fraudulent self-imposed burden because the causal stream is one, and no segment can be abstracted and isolated.

 

As Hume might say, we might want to do this anyway for social reasons even if it is a complete fantasy without solid ground.

 

A wave moves a grain of sand. The wave does not own the sand, though its force was the proximate cause of the grain's motion.

 

Are we waves or grains?

 

Doesnt matter since both reduce to nothingness anyway!

 

8)

[Karl]

This doesnt follow unless there is an owner.

If the world is processes then how can there be a stable non-processes point that also somehow is responsible for all processes?

This is the problem of responsibility. It disappears into the stream of causality, and no point can be drawn out or held apart except arbitrarily.

The idea of ownership requires a stable immutable Self that can make claims on things. But these things are always outside said Self, hence, no claim made upon them is ever valid. Claims are only the violent enforcement of will--the imposition of power over external circumstances and beings.

And, once you strip away all those parts of the Self that are conditioned by external circumstances, you are left with literally nothing. Thus, even the idea of owning behaviours is an idea of violently imposing a will upon the phenomenal world.

One can choose to take responsibilty, but this is a fraudulent self-imposed burden because the causal stream is one, and no segment can be abstracted and isolated.

As Hume might say, we might want to do this anyway for social reasons even if it is a complete fantasy without solid ground.

A wave moves a grain of sand. The wave does not own the sand, though its force was the proximate cause of the grain's motion.

Are we waves or grains?

Doesnt matter since both reduce to nothingness anyway!

8)

 

You have a very weird view of life. You can pontificate if you wish, but this isn't how you experience life so why pretend that some other thing is true.

 

"Violent enforcement" is very emotive. We respect others and don't steal their stuff so how is that violent enforcement ? Our emotions tell us if we are doing things that don't accord with our values. You seem to make the same assumptions that man is an uncontrollable animal bent on violent appropriation. This is the cry of every socialist, anti-capitalist, environmentalist and feminist. Man has no self ownership and therefore should accept the collective ideology in which the self is sacrificed to the needs of the greater good.

 

Yet, despite everything you will stand there arguing your point which is in complete opposition to your ideology of non ownership. It's a hypocritical stance and you should see through it and find out why you have chosen to force that belief on your self. It is this belief that has led to mass murder under communism- for the good of the people. We had to destroy the people to save the people is clearly not a good rationale.

[Taomeow]

This doesnt follow unless there is an owner.

 

If the world is processes then how can there be a stable non-processes point that also somehow is responsible for all processes?

 

This is the problem of responsibility. It disappears into the stream of causality, and no point can be drawn out or held apart except arbitrarily.

 

The idea of ownership requires a stable immutable Self that can make claims on things. But these things are always outside said Self, hence, no claim made upon them is ever valid. Claims are only the violent enforcement of will--the imposition of power over external circumstances and beings.

 

And, once you strip away all those parts of the Self that are conditioned by external circumstances, you are left with literally nothing. Thus, even the idea of owning behaviours is an idea of violently imposing a will upon the phenomenal world.

 

One can choose to take responsibilty, but this is a fraudulent self-imposed burden because the causal stream is one, and no segment can be abstracted and isolated.

 

As Hume might say, we might want to do this anyway for social reasons even if it is a complete fantasy without solid ground.

 

A wave moves a grain of sand. The wave does not own the sand, though its force was the proximate cause of the grain's motion.

 

Are we waves or grains?

 

Doesnt matter since both reduce to nothingness anyway!

 

8)

 

Neither waves nor grains.  We are patterns. 

 

A pattern is owned by its co--creator.  I co-created my bedroom with the architect, the carpenter, the textile manufacturers and the carpet weavers.  They made "things," I created a pattern out of these things -- "my bedroom."  I co-created my body with nature and society, by maintaining a pattern of behaviors that gave it a particular weight, range of flexibility, haircut, temperature, rate of oxygen consumption, electromagnetic output, even a particular length of fingernails and things entirely indefinite yet distinct like "presence" and "vibe."  Consequently I can walk into my bedroom and find the bed without turning the light on because I know where it is, and the reason I know is, I co-created this pattern of interactions between the body I co-created and the bedroom I co-created.  The pattern is what I own.  I own my own behavior.

 

The rest of the universe owns its patterns to the extent it co-creates them.  You can't claim a relationship with Jupiter if you didn't place your furniture so as to avoid "offending the Grand Duke" -- but if you practice feng shui and arranged your bedroom with an eye on the Jupiter, you created this relationship with him, this particular pattern.  What I do is a pattern and I am the owner.  Or, rather, the pattern I create is me, it does not matter at all if the atoms zipping in and out of this pattern by a billion every nanosecond are grains or waves and whether they reduce to nothingness in the great taoist equation "being comes from nonbeing, nonbeing returns to being" of which you seem to favor one half, the one that reduces to nothingness, while neglecting the second half which forever turns this nothingness into everythingness.  They will still have to adjust to the pattern I created, and I, to the pattern they created.  We are the king and queen of this castle. 

Edited September 3, 2015 by Taomeow

[zerostao]

 

 

Are we waves or grains?

 

 

 

Neither waves nor grains.  We are patterns. 

 there is a pattern now of the waves washing up onto the grains of sanded beaches

children refugee

[Astral Monk]

Do parents 'own' their children which they 'co-create'?

 

To inquire after ownership is to ask 'what is MINE?'

 

To ask what is mine is to ask 'what is ME?'

 

To look deeply into ME is to see nothingness, to see no immutable center from which things flow and no grounds for any claim of appropriation.

 

We only say 'this is mine and that is mine' because we collect it about ourselves and guard it against appropriation by others, not because there is any special metaphysical connection binding 'me' and 'these things'.

 

It is force, not participation, that grounds the concept of ownership.

 

Creators give birth. Owners appropriate.

 

On the one hand we have a blossoming forth that adds to the diversity of nature.

 

On the other a forceful segregation that arbitrarily divides nature.

 

Again, if everything is a process, where is the primary process upon which all depends?

 

'Ownership' is a uniquely human problem.

 

It goes beyond causality. Even if multiple processes produce a new process that new process stands on its own; or, we have to consider that it is not really separate from its causes--which implies that no thing is seaparate from anything else and the distinctions are arbitrary or at best convenient practical fictions.

 

Ownership goes beyond mere factual reporting of cause and as such is a pretty haughty puffed up violent possesion attempting to connect one moment of a series to all subsequent moments while neglecting the fact that no moment is or can be primary.

 

8)

 

Neither waves nor grains. We are patterns.

 

A pattern is owned by its co--creator...

[Astral Monk]

'Ownership' is violent appropriation pure and simple.

 

Oh it may not always result in actual violence where agents can come to mutually beneficial agreements, but the basic principle remains, forever unaltered.

 

It is a claim by an agent that some thing external to themself is 'theirs' exclusively, which is quite clearly nonsense. Especially when you discover that there is no 'self' to which such a claim can be affixed--that said 'self' is just as empty an delusional as the claim it makes.

 

Which is why 'ownership of self' is patently absurd.

 

If the world is a series of processes then there is nothing but processes, each one flowing seamlessly into the next, with no primacy to any one--in fact it is impossible to isolate a 'one' except arbitrarily, which is, you guessed it, a kind of violence.

 

Its like as if one could pluck a single drop of water from a great raging river, hold it up and declare 'THIS drop, THIS drop is THE key drop that moves the river'.

 

Little does one guess that in plucking the drop to make such an assertion on is in fact creating the drop be separating it violently from the stream.

 

 

You have a very weird view of life. You can pontificate if you wish, but this isn't how you experience life so why pretend that some other thing is true."Violent enforcement" is very emotive. We respect others and don't steal their stuff so how is that violent enforcement ?

 

'Ownership' is just another fiction without any foundation in reality that we use to self-justify our actions. Its a kind of bootstrapping.

 

Of course it is a form of violence because it cannot be supported without recourse to arms. We make make a claim to 'own' something but that means absoltely nothing when a bigger stronger person comes and takes it. And nature laughs it ass off at the empty claim.

 

Sure we can agree to respect each others space, but thats just a practical navigation of social reality. We make those decisions to avoid getting beaten up and killed by bigger stronger agents.

 

'Violence' here refers to the exercise of a greater power over a lesser one. To say, for example, 'I own this land' means absolutely nothing unless one is willing to fight off others who want to make the same claim. And in terms of nature it means nothing at all.

 

 

Our emotions tell us if we are doing things that don't accord with our values.

 

So what if I feel good about killing you and taking your land, crops, and livestock?

 

Emotion is not a particularly solid basis for an ethical system, nor is it necessarily the root origin of value.

 

 

You seem to make the same assumptions that man is an uncontrollable animal bent on violent appropriation.

 

No, not at all.

 

The truth of the matter is that 'ownership' just like 'rights' comes to absolutely nothing without the threat of consequential enforcement by a superior power or agency.

 

Its all a fiction of course, but we choose to adhere to it because it is practical.

 

 

This is the cry of every socialist, anti-capitalist, environmentalist and feminist. Man has no self ownership and therefore should accept the collective ideology in which the self is sacrificed to the needs of the greater good.

 

Not my points, not my argument, sorry.

 

Besides, havent you heard--environmentalism and feminism are all the rage these days.

 

 

Yet, despite everything you will stand there arguing your point which is in complete opposition to your ideology of non ownership. It's a hypocritical stance and you should see through it and find out why you have chosen to force that belief on your self. It is this belief that has led to mass murder under communism- for the good of the people. We had to destroy the people to save the people is clearly not a good rationale.

 

'Ownership' is one of the biggest problems of humanity and responsible for all that death and murder you speak of. Its quite clear that war and killing starts when two 'owners' desire each others 'property'.

 

Ownership is nothing but a delusion propped up by the threat--real or implied--of violent retribution. It can only be thus because it is a made up fantasy drawn out by beings desparately clinging to existence in a harsh and uncaring universe.

 

8)

[Astral Monk]

Also, dont confuse this philosophizing about the concept of ownership for making proscriptions about how society works or should work. I havent gotten to the 'therefore <insert ethical proscription here>' yet and probably wont. I reckon a philosophy that rejects the concept of ownership might just as easily lead to anarchy as communism and maybe not either of those.

 

8)

[Karl]

'Ownership' is violent appropriation pure and simple.

Oh it may not always result in actual violence where agents can come to mutually beneficial agreements, but the basic principle remains, forever unaltered.

It is a claim by an agent that some thing external to themself is 'theirs' exclusively, which is quite clearly nonsense. Especially when you discover that there is no 'self' to which such a claim can be affixed--that said 'self' is just as empty an delusional as the claim it makes.

Which is why 'ownership of self' is patently absurd.

If the world is a series of processes then there is nothing but processes, each one flowing seamlessly into the next, with no primacy to any one--in fact it is impossible to isolate a 'one' except arbitrarily, which is, you guessed it, a kind of violence.

Its like as if one could pluck a single drop of water from a great raging river, hold it up and declare 'THIS drop, THIS drop is THE key drop that moves the river'.

Little does one guess that in plucking the drop to make such an assertion on is in fact creating the drop be separating it violently from the stream.

 

'Ownership' is just another fiction without any foundation in reality that we use to self-justify our actions. Its a kind of bootstrapping.

Of course it is a form of violence because it cannot be supported without recourse to arms. We make make a claim to 'own' something but that means absoltely nothing when a bigger stronger person comes and takes it. And nature laughs it ass off at the empty claim.

Sure we can agree to respect each others space, but thats just a practical navigation of social reality. We make those decisions to avoid getting beaten up and killed by bigger stronger agents.

'Violence' here refers to the exercise of a greater power over a lesser one. To say, for example, 'I own this land' means absolutely nothing unless one is willing to fight off others who want to make the same claim. And in terms of nature it means nothing at all.

 

So what if I feel good about killing you and taking your land, crops, and livestock?

Emotion is not a particularly solid basis for an ethical system, nor is it necessarily the root origin of value.

 

No, not at all.

The truth of the matter is that 'ownership' just like 'rights' comes to absolutely nothing without the threat of consequential enforcement by a superior power or agency.

Its all a fiction of course, but we choose to adhere to it because it is practical.

 

Not my points, not my argument, sorry.

Besides, havent you heard--environmentalism and feminism are all the rage these days.

 

'Ownership' is one of the biggest problems of humanity and responsible for all that death and murder you speak of. Its quite clear that war and killing starts when two 'owners' desire each others 'property'.

Ownership is nothing but a delusion propped up by the threat--real or implied--of violent retribution. It can only be thus because it is a made up fantasy drawn out by beings desparately clinging to existence in a harsh and uncaring universe.

8)

 

Firstly you must own your body and mind, then those things that you have worked on which are the product of body and mind. It is the only way in which you can trade with another person. If you do not own it then you cannot give it to anyone as they are free to take it, but as anyone is free to take it, then there is no point producing anything. Just wait for someone else to produce something and then take it. Here there are no moral values and it really is dog eat dog. This is why man has the ability to reason and to impart ownership as a necessity for survival.

 

Of course it does mean that from necessity that one has the right to defend ones property with as much force as deemed necessary, mostly though, that force is simply the adoption of a fence to show what is considered owned. This is respected by all but the thief. It is reason which prevails and not force. It is the 'reason' we developed language simultaneously in order to argue verbally before preceding to physical action. Mostly a thief is repelled by simply a warning shout. The implied threat is enough. No one really wants to go to the point of physical damage to their own property 'mind and body'.

 

Killing and war is a natural facet of a failure to communicate. It's only recently that it has become as bloody and destructive as it has. The reason here is that 'ownership' has been subverted to defence of the state. It is a very few men who have convinced the vast body of men that they are to sacrifice themselves for the good of all. They use fallacious argumentation such as 'your country needs you' and 'every man shall do his duty'. This then is a product of transferral. The vast body of men are no longer 'owners' of their bodies, minds or productive effort and are property of the state.

 

The taking of 'land and resources' is really a lie. In the short term of course you can take crops and animals that have already been produced, but you are then stuck with working the fields for yourself, feeding the livestock, digging the ore etc. someone must then take ownership and risk the same attacks as the previous owners. This is patently unstable and returns to an idea that no one owns anything. Sometimes the inhabitants are press ganged into working for the thieves, but then, we see that the thief must keep control of the inhabitants which is 'ownership' again.

 

I did not say the 'emotion' was the only decider, it is necessary to trigger thought and moral action through reason. It is not simply that one should not steal that is implied because of bad emotion, but that stealing will be result in the 'no ownership' that you believe in. If no one produces because the result is theft, then the thief goes hungry as well. It's this knowledge that will always mean that thieves will be in the minority and fences will be necessary.

 

If you have no ownership of self then you can't have reason, or moral values and are less useful than a jackal.

[zerostao]

http://news.yahoo.com/europe-migrant-crisis-expected-putin-095320325.html

 

edit to add:

http://news.yahoo.com/hungarys-orban-says-flow-migrants-endless-radio-063006705.html

Edited September 4, 2015 by zerostao

[dawei]

This has turned into one of the most interesting and meaningless debates which TDB is infamous for... 

 

And if I were the referee I would call it a draw only because both sides are right and wrong.  

 

It is simply a matter of perspective, awareness, integration, and euphemistic knowledge. 

 

There is a kind of interpersonal contract among local inhabitants... who will adhere to a kind of social contract made with your state which has a kind of regional contract made to a region which is a kind of regional contract to a  nation... which is a kind of continental contact and a kind of global contract... OK YOU GET IT

 

In my 10+ years of battling christian brainwashing, I did learn a few good ideas... to be "in this world but not be of this world".

 

There is always more than one reality or perspective:  And you can integrate them into a whole; and you can see each one for what it is trying to explain; but never attached to any one of them.  If your attached to any one idea, your attached.

 

As a disclaimer... some perspectives are share within their boundary of reality and are absolute... 

[Taomeow]

I actually participated in the abstract part of it by mistake, since AM's entry led me to the erroneous impression that I'm in the  "random philosophy" thread, which I was participating in at the same time.  I wouldn't have responded to that line of intellectual  inquiry in this one if I hadn't made this mistake. 

 

That's because it is my firm conviction that religious ideology, whether Christian, Buddhist or Zoroastrian, has as much right to intrude on the subject of actual human experience as the humans having the experience will allow, encourage, or ask for.  Without such invitation having been obtained, to proceed with any abstract ideas unrelated to this experience, however profound, is to insist that everybody oblige a hammer by promptly turning into a nail on cue.

[Karl]

This has turned into one of the most interesting and meaningless debates which TDB is infamous for... 

 

And if I were the referee I would call it a draw only because both sides are right and wrong.  

 

It is simply a matter of perspective, awareness, integration, and euphemistic knowledge. 

 

There is a kind of interpersonal contract among local inhabitants... who will adhere to a kind of social contract made with your state which has a kind of regional contract made to a region which is a kind of regional contract to a  nation... which is a kind of continental contact and a kind of global contract... OK YOU GET IT

 

In my 10+ years of battling christian brainwashing, I did learn a few good ideas... to be "in this world but not be of this world".

 

There is always more than one reality or perspective:  And you can integrate them into a whole; and you can see each one for what it is trying to explain; but never attached to any one of them.  If your attached to any one idea, your attached.

 

As a disclaimer... some perspectives are share within their boundary of reality and are absolute... 

 

Except no one made any such contract. The social contract is another myth by design. 'To be in this world and not of it' is a choice, but only if you know you have a choice. The manacles on mind and spirit are tenacious and are self imposed. Once education is over the recipient quietly locks themselves inside a cell without further effort. The bricks and Iron are supplied with an instruction booklet and the prisoner diligently follows the instructions provided.

 

Reality is reality, it's form does not alter, but the social construct is built from the inside out. The prison cannot be known because it is created by the mind. The mind creates it from concepts and, the concepts have been skewed during the process of state education. Just as Orwell and HG Wells remarked-words and then concepts can be changed to provide a new reality. During the start of state education in the USA it was-I think-Dewey who had the intention of creating in the minds of children that the snow was really black. This is cybernetics and Eugenics.

[Lois]

 This is cybernetics and Eugenics.

 

I cybernetics. What follows from this?

[Karl]

I cybernetics. What follows from this?

 

Totalitarian control. Turning the population into mindless robots through the state education system and the media. Controlling the message by controlling the definitions.