Story-Telling, Narratives, And Self-Regulation

I just finished sitting through 15 minutes - absolutely grueling! - of a David Icke talk on why "Saturn is evil", and I find myself asking, how is it falsity can masquerade so plausibly as truth?

The answer is easy, and always the same: affect regulation.

David Icke's universe is as big as David Ickes affective interests. He begins with some interesting and plausible descriptions of "energy fields" and the hidden power of signs/symbols to organize or stimulate the "energy field" of the brain...I think - or feel - "this is sensible"...But then he transitions to mythology, and then just accepts a ludicrous theory that the solar system was "shuffled" out of place by some ancient bombardment, and that the planet Saturn - instead of being a pale-dim light relative to the behavior of Earth, is magically transfigured into a "being existing for Humans".

Now, some people really do believe this - and it is here, in the narrative, in the organization - and primarily - the fear, the anxiety, the need to be on defense - which is really just paranoia - that the inner dynamics of the mind reveal themselves most clearly.

Icke's assumptions, and overly-assertive claims to know how things are - reveals what kind of Hokum he's about. Yes, conspiracies exist - but we needn't invoke anything more than megalomania - regulated by positive-feedback loops between Human beings with symmetrical affective needs.

The weaving of the narrative is reality. As Tolstoy would have put it, there are an infinite number of ways to be delusional (or to 'play') but there is only one truth. What Humans do with one another - and importantly, the separation of Humans into a "top tier" and a "bottom-tier" - social processes marked out on our planets history - in Africa, which has yielded rich evidences of our ancient primitive past at many different periods, and despite the fantasies people give - good science tries to wean out theories which make unnecessary assumptions.

Now, David Icke exists in a world where a massive chasm exists between the wealthy, rich, "the haves", versus the have-nots - the vast majority of Humans on Earth. I don't know his personal intentions, but they sound a whole lot like the other weird gnostic fantasies which grip naive imaginations who - while recognizing concepts like "entrainment", do not appreciate their own entrainment - and dependence upon - the views to which they've become emotionally attached to, and which are already popular among, the elite classes.

The main point is utterly simple, and one everyone can understand: we try to defend the feelings we feel, and our brain-minds reflexively attend to the world in a way that operates in some advantageous way relative to the affects the person feels. Symbols are not simply "information" - but contain affective dynamics that act upon our self's perceptual orientation towards the world. The dynamic is basic - and one you don't here in Icke's very disembodied theories: Action-Percpetion, Perception-Action. We are constantly "evolving" regulatory strategies towards the world's we inhabit, which means our thinking is already biased in its very nature to advantageously "latch on" to themes/ideas/referents that "fit well" within your existing meaning-system - as organized, of course, by symbols - narratives - things discussed in converations with real people.

Icke is abstract - dissociative - and literally over-states everything, wavering again and again through his zest for a "plausible narrative", without much concern for "probability given alternative explanations".

Mind you, none of this says anything towards or about the ontology of mind - only that some views are so metaphysical in their nature - i.e. saturn = bad - and so "filled by narrative" - that the mind-brain literally gets carried away by its own affective investments - forced to believe all sorts of irrational and unreal things because other beliefs "substantiate" their value - not to mention the social-significance and value that beliefs/assertions hold for how we feel vis-a-vis others - inasmuch as making assertions in the presence of others and experiencing their response to you as a "knower" - and the affective impact it has...

This is the stuff of science ^^^ - this is where meaningful information lies - not Saturn. This ancient habit of "de-focusing" from self-experience towards an external referent, we must remember, always occurred within the context of a very asymmetric social context: not the ideal matrix to foster what we may call "true perceptions" - at least, not unless minds are forced by normal dissociative processes i.e. inner lying, misrepresentation, to accept the asymmetric thriving of a small group (the elite) versus a larger group - the masses.

What lives in us are the AFFECTIVE DYNAMICS: the insane assumption that we "hold" our feelings, as opposed to emerge within the context already set by our feelings - typical of disembodied spiritual philosophies - is what lets people think that the world is their little "personal story" - where they are "the hero" - telling their story - which allows all sorts of feelings to be told - without much reference to their ontological correspondence - its correlation, between the mind-brain and the causal conditions which arise as contents within its perception. When I say 'water is real' - this is correct correlation. My brain-mind reflexively organizes my mind to semantically represent this liquidy thing as "water" - and so its correlated to the real physical thing, and so correctly known.

Conversely, listen to Donald Trump or his minions on T.V., and what you hear is "anti-correlation". The claims their brain-minds make about reality are false - there is no external referent that contains and correlates to that statement. It is false, and if accepted, permits a "channeling" down more falsity, as a false claim - especially a very big one, like moral-relativism - has "implications" for subsequent actions within reality.

Falsehood, in other words, can be quite sophisticated.

It takes truth - love - to detect the emptiness of its claims.

a reply to: Astrocyte

Sounds like Icke read Worlds in Collision .It is a book written by Immanuel Velikovsky en.wikipedia.org...

a reply to: Astrocyte

It pains me to see you get so close but then mess it all up. And you do this over and over again - it's killing me.

Look:

Hebrews 4:
12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Galatians 5:
22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, longsuffering, gentleness, goodness, faith,

23 Meekness, temperance: against such there is no law.

Can you see it?

Imagine "|" is a dividing sword:

spirit | soul
will | emotion

Do you see what I'm saying? There is a difference between will and emotions that you need to acknowledge. Emotions (feelings) are concepts, not will or "affect". (I'm pretty sure that I've told you this before, that emotions are "like first responder thoughts")

The reason it is so difficult to distinguish between the two is because of how quickly emotions (which are thoughts) arise when conceiving will/intent.

That is, it is will that "affects" us, not emotions.

If you want to understand the soul and spirit you have to get these things right.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I drew you a picture:



Separate the act or will of love from the feeling of love. (Notice the fruits of the Spirit are act of will, and not acts of emotion.)

You perceive the will of love as the feeling of love. Will leads to feel - will is first.

If it is my will to do what feels good then it is still my will that controls me.

"Control your emotions - don't let your emotions control you." Isn't that the message? Do what is good because it is good, not because of how it feels? The right thing does not always feel good?