It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Progressives Worship the Cult of Science

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:10 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 





This will be our journey - or it seems to me to be the case - towards self government. Learning to effectively communicate with each other, which I am guessing means learning to let go of our love affair with secrets and lies.


Cool, we agree.

E=mc2. Energy equals mass accelerating at the speed of light. Some pretty strange things happen when you hit light speed with time, but as long as you can reverse your gravity you can overcome the light speed limit as you have negative weight and inertial is working for you and not against you as you "fall" through space. Just don't accelerate at light speed or all your mass will be transferred to energy. This is why you need 2 partial beams at near c speed in an atom smasher to get the c2 part to unlock the energy and have a peek inside.

For free energy this is what I mean pesn.com...

We all have times being lazy, language is a strength for you so you will notice the effects there more. Just dropping out and looking at the stars for a few months can be healing thing. But we all have needs and desires and can do nothing for so long until we have to do something. We all want to improve our lives socially, physically, mentally, emotionally and in what ever other ways that appeal to us. The collective consciousness is a powerful force. It does need guidance and discipline, sometimes from within sometimes externally. It is fluid and adaptable like the cells in our body, some have a static role, some move around, some are used heaps and others rarely. The vision of the future I have where everyone is allowed to express their full potential is beyond anything I can imagine. Ideas I cannot conceive will surface, capabilities I cannot comprehend will arise but through this haze, Earth will finally blossom after all of its growing pains. I feel that the universe is still learning about itself, science is one language that can give it some answers.
edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: spelling 'I', 'haze'




posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 04:21 AM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 





The vision of the future I have where everyone is allowed to express their full potential is beyond anything I can imagine.


This statement gets precisely to the heart of my argument regarding language. Allowed? Who, I wonder, will be doing this allowing? The intelligentsia? Imagine this, if you will, a future where people express their full potential because they choose to do so, and need no ones permission or allowance to do so.

Now, you can come back and respond by qualifying that you didn't mean "allowed" per se, and really meant closer to what I said, but if you did - and I cannot know one way or the other - then why not say what you mean? If you mean what you say, then you should say what you mean. So, the question is, did you say what you mean, and if you did, do you genuinely mean what you say? If so, then we do not agree. If not, and you meant to say something else, it remains to be seen if we agree. Do you see the genuine problem that language creates?



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 05:32 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


As for who is doing the allowing is the collective consciousness. Some issues affect the globe and some basic laws are common to the globule (UN). This breaks down through the national, state, local and individual levels as the diversity of cultures express their uniqueness. The legal system is branch of science for conflict resolution, yes it has problems but it also has a long history and a lot of wisdom in how to resolve conflict. With support from the other sciences it will help streamline practices. It is slow and resistance to change, there are good reasons for this due to cultural stability, but it does change and with more support this change will be more positive.

With what I meant with "allowed" is that currently the population is kept in servitude through economic and social structure bonds. There is some freedom in the choice of work, but with long hours, little sleep and enough pay to survive our time is not our own for most people. A few can achieve economic freedom, mine is temporary and soon I will be forced back to work and my time at ATS will come to an end or be servilely limited at least. The chance I have had to stay here full time has been very enlightening and helping with were my next employment interests are.

If I understand what you mean then we are getting into the area of freedom. I support the libertarian branch with the definition of freedom with responsibility. A child is like a black slate, their environment will influence who they become. With a focus towards support, nurture and understanding how best to shape the individual, potential is achieved. This is complex and subjective, but many rights and wrongs are already known.

Corporate responsibility is also important, going around giving everyone nuclear bombs because it is technology ain't wise. There are global systems in place to help manage this nuclear issue. With things like GMO I would also like to see more global review put into the subject to hold companies like Monsanto accountable to all the aspects of GMO and not just pay their way through the hoops.

From you convoluted expression of meaning, I said what I mean, this may not have been received as you meant. From my explanation of what was meant, I think we are in agreement. Language can be a challenge at times, we agree on that. .
edit on 17-2-2011 by kwakakev because: added comma



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 01:40 PM
link   
The Scientific Method is a Johnny come lately discipline and limited to 6-8 Axioms, it is finite and limited in that if something cannot be duplicated it is thrown out. Not saying we haven't learned much from Science but the real questions we have will never be validated by Science, good example would be consciousness, science tells us that everything comes from the brain, it is my opinion that the brain only felicitates consciousness.

Theoretical Physics today, remember their conclusions are theories, tells us something is true when it's not, in the beginning they talk about something as theory and all of a sudden the word it lost, good example is The Big Bang :"Theory", I watch a lot of science programing and cannot remember the last time theory was used when talking about the Big Bang.



posted on Feb, 17 2011 @ 11:52 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


My friend, you and I are most assuredly in disagreement. When I spoke to tapping into the collective consciousness, I was not speaking of some Borgian collective, or any collective for that matter. I do not in any way shape or form advocate collectivism. I was merely speaking to extra sensory perception and the ability to hear each others thoughts without the nuisance of inefficient language. I hypothesized that such an evolutionary process would mean that secrets and lies would be obsolete, as they would be impossible. However, a collective consciousness doing allowing is not, by any stretch of the imagination, liberty.

The United Nations is, in my estimation, a useless organization that continually threatens to become dangerous, if it is not all ready dangerous. Where the U.N. advocates the disarming of the public, it also quite clearly advocates the arming of military's and police forces. When you speak to issues that affect the globe, I would suggest one of the single greatest issues affecting the globe is the industrial military complex, particularly nuclear arsenals and biological weapons of mass destruction. When you say; "going around giving everyone nuclear bombs because it is technology ain't wise", implicit in this remark is that it is quite all right for governments to have nuclear arsenals. It ain't wise, brother...ain't wise at all.

The United Nations efforts to disarm the populace without making any efforts to disarm governments makes perfectly clear the intent of the United Nations, and it certainly isn't a belief that the people are the government, and if you honestly believe that by empowering the United Nations even further as a strategy to ultimately dis-empower the United Nations, then I would suggest you check your premise. As Ayn Rand always used to say, there are no contradictions, if you find a contradiction check your premise.

It is heartening to some to some degree to read your argument that the legal system is a branch of science, and if by this that you mean that all law is natural and science is a field that observes the natural phenomenons and endeavors to describe it in a realistic and practical way, then on this we can find agreement. All law is natural, and legislation is not law, merely evidence of law. If it is law, it true, simple, universal and absolute. The right to individual self defense is law. It is true, simple, universal and absolute. This is the lawful basis of government. Any premise of government operating outside of this basis is not lawful. It begins with the individual right to self defense. What follows is that individuals have the right to collectively defend themselves and this collective self defense is the lawful basis of government.

When the basis of government becomes controlling individuals and enforcing norms the "intelligentsia" believe should be enforced, this is not lawful, it is, for all intents and purposes, tyranny. The emphasis you want to place on "cultural stability" flies in the face of what is observably so. Cultural revolutions occur far more often than political revolutions. Culture is learned. Law remains law whether it is learned or not. Cultural stability cannot be the basis for resistance to change. It may be the excuse, but excuses are like ***holes, everybody has one, but resistance to change, which is inevitable, has to be, if we are to be reasonable and evolving towards self government, a resistance to imprudence and a lack of discretion. Prudence and discretion are not cultural phenomena, they are products of critical thought.

The populace is not "kept in servitude", people are acquiescing to servitude. The economic bonds you refer to are not bonds, they are the current rules of the game. They are rules that tend to create a no win situation for too much of the populace, and for those who understand this they change the rules, those who don't continue to acquiesce. The same goes for "social structures".

Your assertion that a child is like a black (sic) slate is an inaccurate description of children. While environment has a play in shaping how children grow and learn, this is just one aspect of a complex system. A newborn infant comes into this world with definite characteristics that will remain with that individual the entirety of their lives, regardless of the environment in which they were raised. While you pay lip service to the complexity of it, you reduce a child down to a blank slate. This is the mistake that many collectivists advocating social engineering make. The mistake is assuming that the individual is merely a part of the whole, or more to the point, that the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.

What we are talking about here is emergence. In this theory of emergence there is strong and weak emergence. Consider what Mark A. Bedeau has to say about strong emergence:




"Although strong emergence is logically possible, it is uncomfortably like magic. How does an irreducible but supervenient downward causal power arise, since by definition it cannot be due to the aggregation of the micro-level potentialities? Such causal powers would be quite unlike anything within our scientific ken. This not only indicates how they will discomfort reasonable forms of materialism. Their mysteriousness will only heighten the traditional worry that emergence entails illegitimately getting something from nothing.


Getting something from nothing. This is the problem with collectivism, it invariably falls prey to ideological flaws such as communism and socialism. Unwilling to acknowledge the flaws in the ideal, instead those advocating the ideal transfer their ideological flaw onto the individuals who make up the collective. Thus, "social engineering" is devised in an ill fated attempt to "fix" people so that they can finally play by the rules of their flawed ideology, which is nothing more than a magic trick with the illusion that something can come from nothing.


However, "the debate about whether or not the whole can be predicted from the properties of the parts misses the point. Wholes produce unique combined effects, but many of these effects may be co-determined by the context and the interactions between the whole and its environment(s)." (Corning 2002) Along that same thought, Arthur Koestler stated, "it is the synergistic effects produced by wholes that are the very cause of the evolution of complexity in nature" and used the metaphor of Janus to illustrate how the two perspectives (strong or holistic vs. weak or reductionistic) should be treated as perspectives, not exclusives, and should work together to address the issues of emergence.(Koestler 1969) Further,

"The ability to reduce everything to simple fundamental laws does not imply the ability to start from those laws and reconstruct the universe..The constructionist hypothesis breaks down when confronted with the twin difficulties of scale and complexity. At each level of complexity entirely new properties appear. Psychology is not applied biology, nor is biology applied chemistry. We can now see that the whole becomes not merely more, but very different from the sum of its parts."(Anderson 1972)


The whole is not greater than the sum of its parts, it is just different than the sum of its parts. The orange is not greater than Vitamin C, it is different than Vitamin C, even if an orange features Vitamin C. However, an orange would not be an orange if it lacked Vitamin C. This does not make Vitamin C greater than the orange, and while different from the orange, an essential part of the orange. However, the orange is not an essential part of vitamin C. The orange needs vitamin C, vitamin C doesn't need the orange.

As to "corporate responsibility", it is absurd to grant a legal charter of limited liability and then demand this artifice that has been granted limited liability act responsibly. Yet another problem with the collectivist is that they can get so caught up in looking at the forest they forget the forest is made of trees. Which is only demonstrate even further by your naive remark: "There are global systems in place to help manage this nuclear issue", and what is illustrative of this remark is the ridiculously naive belief that the "intelligentsia" can be trusted with nuclear arsenals but the people can't, as if the "intelligentsia" aren't people. The reality is that no one can be trusted with weapons of mass destruction.

Whether you are saying what you mean, and meaning what you say, this remains to be seen. But if your vision as presented in your last post indicates a meant what is said, then be rest assured, we are not in agreement.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 04:28 AM
link   
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


In the exploration of this thread there are points of agreement and disagreement as many issues have been raised. Your vision of collective consciousness will solve may issues problems due to secrets and lies. One problem is in its implementation. There is some good science around proving the ability of telepathy and other psi abilities, however these abilities are not 100% effective in humans. So in my previous question, is human self determination a worth while endeavour for this universe? your answer is no. Perhaps you have some information to implement your vision without requiring a species upgrade. With technology we can help limit these secrets and lies, like wikileaks for example but not reduce them entirely while we have humans.

The UN is a growing political power that is continuing to get stronger, I do not see this trend ending while globalisation continues. As a little guy in this world I am glad to see this body gradually standing up to a lot of the bigger problems. In establishing a platform where the nations of the world can discuss their cultural and other issues it has had many problems to overcome. Its ineffectiveness and danger has been present at times, but this is due to the ineffectiveness and dangers of the nations behind its policy, the UN has been the point of expression.

As for the military, the UN START treaty has been recently signed where all the main armies of the world will try and work together. Like many other treaties it could fail, but an agreement to work towards ending major conflict is in the works. China is yet to sign up but I think they are waiting for some of these global economic issues to be sorted out first. On the nuclear side the IAEC has kept tight reins and held accountable all nations that invest in nuclear technology. I do see nuclear weapons more as a sign of national independence than a tool of war these days. As the global military becomes more cohesive and national conflict declines then there will be more incentive to disarm these dangerous risks.

When it comes identity and character this is the first time I am in disagreement with you. I am aware how this debate has ingrained into policy and is a major flaw of social structure. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment and treat as the same they will share many similarities and talk as one. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment yet encourage them to express their differences they will become to separate people, may have some similarities but they talk and act differently. If you raise two identical twins in different environments they will also become different people, may still have some similarities but they will talk and act differently.

Genetics is a component, but it defines the physical with how the many types of cells work and operate. The brain is dynamic and organic, it learns to respond to the environment through trial and error. Good behaviour is reinforced and becomes habit, bad behaviour is repulsed and the mental pathways fade. This is why we all make mistakes, more so when we are younger. As the brain grows many connections are made and the individual tries many things, depending on how the environment responds dictates which connections are kept and which are lost. This in turn defines how the individual becomes.

The theory of emergence does try to make some headway into some very complex processes. How does the body work, how do societies emerge, how did the planet get made, what it the universe. Our history is a long one, no one is really certain but science is gradually making some ground into the many different aspects. Perhaps one day it will come up with something more than magic. There are many levels of existence and we are yet to clearly define the boundaries, feedback is important, there are interactions between the levels of scale, what works is important, the complexity is intense and it take time. The promotion and continuation of science is the only way we will ever find out. That is why I believe in scientism.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 03:40 PM
link   
reply to post by kwakakev
 


It is astounding to me that you would be so disingenuous as to pretend I said something I did not say, and to be sure pretense it is. To your question - of which I read as wholly rhetorical - "is human self determination a worthwhile endeavor for this universe?" The audacity of you to claim I answered a question I did not answer, but the egregious nature of that audacity in pretending I answered no to such a question is unacceptable. Get this straight, WE DO NOT AGREE! I get that you do not think human self determination is worthwhile, this is why WE DO NOT AGREE.

How ironic that you spend a paragraph discussing my vision of a language free communication sans secrets and lies, and you make an undeniable effort to deceive. Let's make no mistakes about this, I will not accept any qualifications as to why you answered your own question on my behalf, without any approval from me, it was unacceptable. If you somehow believe that the only possible way towards self determination is through the United Nations, then make that argument, and I can only presume this is why you have deigned it necessary to claim I answered no to your question, but do not hide behind deceptiveness in an effort to push forth your agenda. If your cause is just then there is no need to lie.

As to information regarding extra sensory perception, I do not see that it will "require a species upgrade", and there is plenty of evidence that the phenomenon exists in our species as it is today. Consider just one article published for Journal of Scientific Exploration called; The Speed of Thought: Investigation of a Complex Space-Time Metric to Describe Psychic Phenomenon.. As far as this study is concerned the evidence to support the existence of ESP is "overwhelming". There are more things on Heaven and Earth than are dream't of in you philosophy.

You are entitled to your opinions, but your praise of the United Nations, particularly your praise of such treatise as UN START, only underscore why people such as me have a big problem with this so called "cult of science". Your own language demonstrates the severity of the problem:




As for the military, the UN START treaty has been recently signed where all the main armies of the world will try and work together. Like many other treaties it could fail, but an agreement to work towards ending major conflict is in the works. China is yet to sign up but I think they are waiting for some of these global economic issues to be sorted out first. On the nuclear side the IAEC has kept tight reins and held accountable all nations that invest in nuclear technology. I do see nuclear weapons more as a sign of national independence than a tool of war these days. As the global military becomes more cohesive and national conflict declines then there will be more incentive to disarm these dangerous risks.


You see nuclear weapons more as a sign of national independence than a tool of war these days. So, while you earlier claimed "it ain't wise" to be giving nuclear weapons to everyone, you apparently think its wise that all nations arm themselves with nuclear weapons. It is no accident that Mutually Assured Destruction is an acronym for MAD. The madness of governments United as one Nation is not at all a comforting notion. Rhetoric praising treatise where military powers agree to consolidate their power under the guise of disarmament is no more comforting than Mutually Assured Destruction. If you do not understand that the United Nations has made a concerted effort to disarm the general populace, then allow me to elucidate the matter:

U.N. Report on Small Arms


Member States remain central providers of security; this is their sovereign right and responsibility, to be performed in conformity with the rule of law. To effectively execute these tasks, their armed forces, police and other security forces legitimately employ a range of weaponry, of which small arms form an important part. Governments also have a responsibility to ensure public safety and a vested interest in providing human security and development to their citizens. Therefore, ensuring that small arms in private ownership do not enter illicit circuits where their use may contribute to instability and to exacerbating poverty must be part of the equation for every Government


The reification that member states remain central providers of security is a flat out lie. Are you not aware of the fact that Rwanda was a member state of the United Nations in 1994? Do you know the significance of that year regarding Rwanda? The Rwanda Massacre culminated in the slaughter of 850,000 people, but neither the U.N., nor any of its member states lifted a finger to stop this massacre.

The Rwanda massacre is not an isolated incident. There is the matter of Burindi Genocide. While the United Nations is zealous in its advocacy of removing small arms from the general populace of the world, they are either too slow, too inefficient, or simply unwilling to protect those people who have been disarmed by their own government from the clear and undeniable atrocities perpetuated by those very same governments.

The U.N. regularly embraces a policy of non-interference when it comes to brutal dictators slaughtering the people of that dictatorship, and they do so out of the spurious claim that they are respecting national sovereignty, but they clearly have no regard for the national sovereignty of the United States, and that nations Bill of Rights that features the Second Amendment, and worse, they have no regard for individual sovereignty for people the world over.


Nearly 170 million people probably have been murdered by governments in the 20th Century, 1900-1987; over four-times those killed in combat in all international and domestic wars during the same years.


www.hawaii.edu...

If disarmament is to be taken seriously at all, then it must be a top down approach instead of a bottom up. The reason that people have the right to keep and bear arms is so they may protect themselves from tyrannical governments, including, and especially their own.




When it comes identity and character this is the first time I am in disagreement with you. I am aware how this debate has ingrained into policy and is a major flaw of social structure. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment and treat as the same they will share many similarities and talk as one. If you raise two identical twins in the same environment yet encourage them to express their differences they will become to separate people, may have some similarities but they talk and act differently. If you raise two identical twins in different environments they will also become different people, may still have some similarities but they will talk and act differently.

Genetics is a component, but it defines the physical with how the many types of cells work and operate. The brain is dynamic and organic, it learns to respond to the environment through trial and error. Good behaviour is reinforced and becomes habit, bad behaviour is repulsed and the mental pathways fade. This is why we all make mistakes, more so when we are younger. As the brain grows many connections are made and the individual tries many things, depending on how the environment responds dictates which connections are kept and which are lost. This in turn defines how the individual becomes.


First of all, when I speak to the individual characteristics of a person, I am not reducing it to genetics alone. I am speaking to the complete complexity of that person. If extra sensory perception is "overwhelmingly" evident, it is worthwhile, scientifically speaking, to consider that there is more to a person than the physical, both genetic and environment. It is worth considering that there is a spirit or soul inhabiting that body. To reject such a notion out of hand is decidedly unscientific.

Secondly, your generalization of twins and behavior is not entirely accurate. Consider this study: Heredity Versus Environment: Twin, Adoptions and Family Studies. First let me begin by posting the Conclusion offered by Haimowitz before quoting some of the studies he summarizes:


It is clear from the brief summaries provided on twin, adoption, and family studies that there is no black or white answer to the age-old question of what contributes to human behavior, personality, and psychopathology. In reviewing a multitude of twin, adoption, and family studies broaching a large variety of topics, it is clear to see that the foundation for each human being is diverse in structure. For some cases, genetics seem to dominate; in some other cases, environment explains all. In still more situations, it is a strong combination of the two factors that mold people to be who they are. This is a strong indicator that there will never be an umbrella response to the question, and that personality and psychopathology may always have to be rationalized on a case-by-case basis.


Now, let's look at what some of those studies say about twins:


Personality is a good example of a trait that has been studied in twins. Identical twins reared apart are far more similar in personality than fraternal twins. These observations suggest that personality is heritable. However, the environment must also be looked at. There are two kinds of environmental effects: shared experiences and nonshared experiences. Although identical twins are genetically identical and share the same family environment, identical twins raised together do not have identical personalities. These differences must then be explained entirely by nonshared environmental effects.


Heather A. Blout


For the most part, or at least from my experience, twins tend to stick together when they are in their adolescent and teenage years. As a result of being together they would also share the same peer group. Combining these ideas and the group socialization theory, it seems logical that if twins share the same peer group then they would also share the same attitudes, beliefs, and norms. And if what we learn in our early years becomes a part of our personality, how could twins have different attitudes, beliefs, and norms when they are older?

This question seems to relate more to MZ twins than to DZ twins, because DZ twins are comparable to normal siblings in that they only share half of their genes. Perhaps the variance is greater for the nonshared environment because of the DZ twins, who are more apt to have different peer groups. Another explanation could be that both MZ and DZ twins had individual life experiences that changed how they thought and what they believed.

Even with these explanations, which are only guesses, I am still unsure why there was greater variance across the sample for certain attitudes that were attributed to the nonshared environment. I am sure further research could answer these questions.


Caitlin M. Jones

While twin studies are useful, there is still too much that is unknown to reasonably use those studies to make any claims of fact regarding the "nature vs nurture" argument, and it should be noted that in this "nature vs nurture" debate that the idea of a spirit or soul is not even considered as a valid consideration.




The promotion and continuation of science is the only way we will ever find out. That is why I believe in scientism.


Your belief in scientism as a field or religion is fine with me, and not what my complaint is. It is the advocacy of thecnocracy that I take issue with. I am not a huge fan of any -cracy, but if there must be one, and in spite of the unfortunate misappropriation of the word by the satirist Mike Judge, I will term this -cracy idiocracy, to be translated as self rule. Self government, this is what I am advocating, and if this is the agreement you find with me, then I retract my insistence that we most assuredly do not agree, and will overlook the small disagreements to recognize that we agree on that which is most important...that is, if you agree that self government is the only plausible evolutionary step for humanity.



posted on Feb, 18 2011 @ 08:18 PM
link   
It was wrong of me to put words in your mouth, a question mark would have been more appropriate. At least this question is now crystal clear as I did do some deduction with your first response to the question as well. To be clear, in the question is human self determination a worth while endeavour for this universe? my answer is yes. The issue I have with self determination is that I see this as the biggest risk from the ongoing technological surge and continuing centralisation of power and control. This is a powerful, strong, intelligent beast in the making and unless we tame it, it will tame us. I do not want to release my self determination to a collective borg. The state of warfare has changed in this world with the mind as the next flag.

The tools of deception have a very long history in nature as a successful survival technique. The evolvement of psi abilities will aid in reducing the threats from deception, but will not eliminate it entirely unless there is a major evolutional jump or borg hybridization to monitor thought. There will still be the problem of knowing where to look while individual determination remains. That was a very good article exploring the physics of psi, there is still some way to go but as science continues its journey more and more of the pieces are falling into place. The evidence of a spiritual component is compelling with near death and out of body experience's as well as other anecdotal evidence. On the debate of nature v nurture I was coming for a neurological perspective, this is a complex one that will go on for some time with many different fields of science involved.

With the state of warfare I am being realistic about the situation, this has long history in human culture and will not disappear overnight. I am open to any ideas on how to reduce the threat and implementation of war, at the moment START is the best path I see out of this sticky situation. MAD is the reason why I am not too concerned about some tightly regulated proliferation, but acknowledge it is a serious issue and the planet is better of without these tools. Unification of the worlds military is the only way I can see this happening, if you have any other ideas I would like to hear it.

I do understand the issue with gun laws in America after being a part of the culture for so long. Your debate about revolution is limited as the military has the upper hand when it comes to the use of force. Egypt is just the latest example where the army had the final say in the removal of the leader. The military forces are the siblings, parents and other kin of the population and it is in their interest to protect them.

For self governing, Belgium has shown that the nation still works fine without any national governance for the past 8 or so months. The wages are still getting paid and the local government is making sure the garbage and other duties are still being performed. If the local government collapsed as well then things will quickly become more uncomfortable. Society does need some level of organisation to function effectively, there are areas where it has gone to far and others not far enough. What I do like with a Technocracy is the problem-solution mindsets with decisions thoroughly reviewed and based on the facts, not opinions as we have today. As for an actual cracy I am currently leaning towards this one www.abovetopsecret.com... . If you do have a more in depth explanation of the current implications of your idiocracy that will not result in the breakdown into anarchy and social destruction I would like to hear it.
edit on 18-2-2011 by kwakakev because: fixed link



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 07:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
reply to post by TheWalkingFox
 





Swear to god, if I have to explain this to one more person... Here's a link to the internet: http:// Freakin' use it


Einstein once cracked that the definition of insanity was doing the same thing over and over again expecting a different result each time. I can't speak for anyone else, but I tried the link you provided and got a pop up box telling me the URL was invalid and could not be loaded. If other people are experiencing this as well, this might explain why you keep having to "explain" whatever the hell it is you think your 'splaining. You got a lot of 'splainin' to do!


It's what he said it is.....a link to the Internet. You get to fill the rest of that address in yourself. He's being sardonic. You disappoint me. I've always found you to be clever.



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 08:32 AM
link   

Originally posted by SmedleyBurlap
reply to post by Jean Paul Zodeaux
 


You misunderstand me, friend.

First comes the technocracy, then comes the democracy. The intelligensia must run the revolutionary machinery in such a way as to lay the groundwork for a true democracy. When their task is completed, the state apparatus is dismantled, and the public finds that the machinery of democracy has already been constructed, and that the loss of the state has brought not chaos, but peaceful anarchy. For, without the state, there are no more archons left in the realm. The People are sovereign over themselves at that point. This is why Progressives endorse social engineering schemes; they are trying to produce a race of superhumanly-civilized people through education and psychological conditioning. If man's conduct towards his cousins can be improved upon, then anarchy isn't such an unappealing scenario.


I wish I had all day to read this thread, since I appreciate the complexities it showcases. It was sent to me by a friend, but I have other business that calls. I did want to suggest that human beings are a balance between amazing transcendence and abject failure, with failure dominating if one only compares the amount of minutes spent on either effort. The progressive movement isn't any less successful that the conservative movement (except in getting feet to march in lockstep), but that doesn't make it more or less evil than the conservative movement. In fact, it makes it necessary (in congress with the conservative movement) for the crafting of a best-case constant for the modern society.

Scientism (I'm not in love with that term) is fallible human beings working more for their own careers than for anything else, and other humans being forced to capitulate in defense of their careers by becoming just as conservative as the ones who've hijacked the scientific infrastructure and crafted entrenched hierarchies to defend their positions. This is the behavior of conservative individuals who work within a bureaucratic (conservative) structure. They conserve the status quo and defend it against the effort to progress the aim of the structure beyond their power to control and conserve that status quo to their own professional benefit.

The OP seems to have a pronounced difficulty with examining the layers of holon manifestation within the pinnacle holon of the "ism" itself. Within all "isms" there are layers of visceral conservatism. Without these layers, the structure could never survive. Even the most liberal effort's structure depends on the bureaucratic layers of conservatism to ensure that the structure will be there tomorrow.

If all appendages were right legs, what good would it do anyone? The truth is that we need both conservatives and progressives to flourish for a healthy society to survive. This nasty battle between the two is a construct of the super rich and super powerful, as a means of keeping the 98% of humanity from realizing that the 2% have no possible means of protecting themselves against having all that they've accumulated simply taken from them and distributed on a pure accomplishment basis. In the past, this was much easier to defend. The printing press began the trouble - with people increasingly becoming literate and potentially informed for the first time in history - and now the Internet is bringing that threat to the most autocratic regimes on Earth. Hell, Egypt is the nightmare scenario for the uber-rich. Even in Wisconsin the people (Americans, no less) are learning that united numbers mean power. This is what the battle between the Left and the Right has worked tirelessly to prevent in this nation.

No one is more frightened that those who never earned what they have, and the "Lucky Sperm Club" writhes through every sleepless night in terror that we'll all realize someday that they have no way to protect their undeserved wealth and power. So, they hire marketing flacks to teach us to hate each other over the balance that we provide each other.

It'd be funny if it were so tragic. Then again, we all get to die and leave this piss-hole, so it's not as if any of this really matters to any real degree. It's like worrying that your fatigues in basic training aren't tailored to compliment your build. Pretty worthless in many respects.
edit on 2/19/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 19 2011 @ 09:57 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 





It's what he said it is.....a link to the Internet. You get to fill the rest of that address in yourself. He's being sardonic. You disappoint me. I've always found you to be clever.


I am wondering what you thought I meant by "cracked"? Hmmmmmm...



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join