Universal What Now? A Tale of the NWO

page: 3
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join

posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 05:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by KilgoreTrout

It is the same incentive. Pleasure. Satisfying curiousity = pleasure. Money = pleasure. There is no difference, it stimulates the same part of the brain.


But the path to that part gets carved by repeated stimulus- if you're conditioned to seek one type of incentive for your hit, it wears an associative rut in the brain, and you will do what you know works to get what you want. Some types of incentives simply seem to lead to better macroscale outcomes.


And for the record there is absolutely nothing stupid about rodents either. It is the curious cat that followed a # cart 'cos she thought it was a wedding.


I am so sorry, I feel like such a bag of dicks over that comment. Rats are awesome critters, I've been friends with a few in my time.


Exploring space is not about curiousity, as a by product we get to see all the amazing things out there, but the primary drive is the same as the primary drive for pioneerism, seeking untapped resources.


Nah, acquisition is the primary motive for the guys funding it, maybe, but the guys who develop and implement it? Curiosity is a type of rocket fuel avarice can't touch.


And this, if implemented:


After being asked at the Black Hat security conference if he’d like to see NASA supported through crowdfunding, Muirhead responded:

“God, I’d love it. The problem with my new study … is funding. Unfortunately, these missions are pretty expensive. We’d love to have the public involved, the public support. The problem is we still have to work through Congress.”

venturebeat.com...


Means that avarice could be mostly divorced from science and tech and space exploration and all the rest. The people who pitch in, and considering that Space oriented stories and memes spread fastest and furthest I bet there would be a hell of a lot of them, would be in it for love.

And awe.

And because most that have been squashed into the settler mold are just aching for the next niche.


We are hardwired to seek out space that provides for our needs. These stories that you are fixating on, are as often as not propaganda to get people to leave their cloth monkey and venture out on their own so that those left behind can stretch their legs out a bit. That, once upon a time, was a good theme, but it is redundant now, we need new stories, ones about sticking with it, and helping each other out.


But some folks are always going to seek the frontiers, and if they aren't given a legitimate and socially sanctioned route to the outer limits, they go weird. And, anyway, the two aren't mutually exclusive, especially if cooperation that fosters healthy competition is incorporated into the model.

And if we do get into a bottleneck sitch, and we have successfully truncated or even bred these traits out?

We're in trouble.

All types have their applications, widespread pathological expression indicates a broken system, not an obsolete type. And besides.

I want to be a space farmer.
edit on 2-8-2013 by Eidolon23 because: To infinity... and beyond!




posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:14 PM
link   
reply to post by tetra50
 


I apologise, I am taking short cuts in an effort to be succinct due to be restricted in the amount of time that I can be here.

Maslow is flawed due to the limitations of his study group, and the lack of flexibility in the model itself. By not taking into account societal changes and structures, and deviations from the norm, he limits the applicability of the model. It is still useful as a general reference, it is simply flawed when viewing the wider picture.

In terms of the scope of this thread, my point is that we are already here, there is no prevention possible. That does not mean it is 'too late' by any means. My own stance on that is that we are stuck in a forward motion, when perhaps the time has come to hit reverse. That, for me, has no bearing upon individuality, quite the opposite in fact. We need to look inward, and expand inwardly, instead of, as we have been doing, expanding outwardly, looking for room to grow and be different, on the outside, which is basically the definition of what is, pioneerism.

Wars, currently, are not about space as such, they are about controlling resources. The wants of the few being at the expense of the needs of the many. There is no shortage of resources, some people just want more than others. All modern war is all about economics and most tribal, or internal conflict has some basis in resources of one kind or another, so still economic, and it is there that the mainstay of manipulation takes place.

Therefore, of course we have cooperated, and continue to do so, as I stated previously, it has been an intermittent feature of our survival as a species in order to adapt to change. However, often, especially in modern times, it has been based on the need of an enemy of our own species. That is what we need to change.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:16 PM
link   


But some folks are always going to seek the frontiers, and if they aren't given a legitimate and socially sanctioned route to the outer limits, they go weird.


no one puts it or nails it quite like you, blunt and concise and in your face with words you can feel.

Absolutely. That's now my favorite excuse for myself, and why I've gone "wierd."
thanks so much, Eidolon, for helping me understand what I'm looking at in the mirror. HA!

As to Kilgore Trout: What are, then, our solutions, for new narratives....for you are right, we need those new stories, for we are caught up neverendingly in a this repeittive loop that has us all going wierd, I think.

but the problem is, we're not breaking the cycle, or too few of us are, to turn over new narratives to live within the paradigm spelled out here, even just in this thread, of an entire quilt that blankets the space we occupy and defines it not to our liking or preference, but which we seem now to be stuck in.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:21 PM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Wise words, indeed, and now I understand you better, that you have explained what you did about Maslow, and also about our evolution from your point of view. I find it interesting how you characterize war, and the reasons for it. I am interested and must think a while about your depiction of it as having served, perhaps, the needs of our enemies as a species, and how we would break that cycle, not even able at this point, to always identify the enemy. This, I think, plays a fairlly big role in what you suggest at the end of your last posting. And brings me to a favorite topic of mine as to how this may have been accomplished, but this is Eidolon's thread and I will not go there just yet, or perhaps at all, here.

Thanks for your explanations to my questions.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eidolon23
I think maybe this would be related, and maybe include info from the same studies? Hope it's helpful.






That hits the nail on the head (with a few minor tweaks). So, I will concede for the moment that money is not a viable incentive, however, there is a difference in how 'incentive' is perceived according to context, as in 'extra' or 'security' which is what I was trying to communicate. Leaving that aside though. What is most interesting is the difference that 'caring' about what you do makes. If you take that into the context of graduate recruitment, currently, in the UK, any one with a numeracy based degree subject, from mathematics to biology is targeted by the financial sector. Second biggest employer of those subjects, particularly the sciences, is in pharmaceutical sales. How many 18 year olds do you think when selecting to study the life sciences envisioned a career selling car insurance 9 to 5 as their ultimate goal? But then that is the realism, they can either be a lab rat for the next twenty years, in the hope of getting a research post, forking out £20,000 for a PhD along the way, or they can suit up and step into a shiny new Beemer. Everyone gets to go to university, everyone therefore gets saddled with debt, that has to be paid off, therefore dreams go out the window and reality leads to compromise of ideals, and ultimately, a lack of incentive to generally 'do their best'...which is why these people are studying ways to incentivise in the first place. Chicken and egg. Treatment rather than cure.



posted on Aug, 2 2013 @ 06:39 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


I want to reply to your post, but it'll have to wait.


Originally posted by Eidolon23
I want to be a space farmer.


If you haven't read 'Tunnel in the Sky' by Heinlein, you should



posted on Aug, 3 2013 @ 12:00 PM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 



I'll throw in a few complications.

There are, or at least were, two distinct groups that each had their own idea of what constituted a Nice World Order, both becoming increasingly active once European colonialism had pretty much made the world subject toward the end of the 19th century.


The first is our familiar Protestant-Judaic alliance of the Masonic Lodge, which had arisen to counter any big ideas the Catholics might have had, naturally this is based upon Biblical values and expectations of realization of prophecies appertaining to such.

The major fault line in this alliance is that it is based upon the Protestant Nations representing the ten Lost Tribes of Israel, and thus having common interest with Judaism in the re-establishment of greater Israel, and whilst Judaism is happy to indulge as long as their own cause is furthered, they naturally don't share this Christian based belief.

Thus whilst Judaism in the West will promote with the right hand biblical based Conservative values and joint cause with Protestant Nations, with the left hand they are also happy to promote secular humanism and Atheism, Cultural Marxism and Multi-Culturism, things which will ultimately make European Protestants mighty scarce...but those that consider themselves the Elect are hanging on in there.


The second group was entirely European that looked to a Cosmic cause as to why they had managed to conquer the globe, think Atlantean and Thule, this was based in racial supremacy and the natural ordering of things, they tended to reject therefore the Hebrews, unless it could be considered the Israelites of yore were pure Caucasians and the modern manifestation of Judah simply Khazars in disguise.

Occultists tended to follow the Doctrine of this second group, and to look for religious identity in Pre-Christian tradition, which however was undone of course when it's manifestation through the Third Reich was caught between the right hand of Sion and the left hand of the Bolsheviks, since when their name has been mud and ethnic Nationalism within European Nations the ultimate taboo as far as the first group is concerned.

It still has widespread loosely aligned adherents, but nothing much resembling Order. To some extent it's revival and justification is dependent upon the arrival of Aliens, whereas the first group requires a Messiah.

It's the first group that promotes the suggestion that Aliens are grey anyway...





edit on 3-8-2013 by Madrusa because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 6 2013 @ 03:43 AM
link   

Originally posted by Eidolon23
But the path to that part gets carved by repeated stimulus- if you're conditioned to seek one type of incentive for your hit, it wears an associative rut in the brain, and you will do what you know works to get what you want. Some types of incentives simply seem to lead to better macroscale outcomes.


A path only gets carved with over-stimulus, or intense, concentrated stimulus, the objective should be to raise humans that have complex neural routes to pleasure attainment. Much neurobiological study has led to the belief that we can short cut the process, incentive studies are one such example, but what that video you posted indicates, is the the happiest workers are those who are able to utilise all aspects of their selves and interests, autonomously. Happy people, generally, want other people to be equally fulfilled, therefore it self perpetuates, just as much as sad, bitter people want to spread the misery.


Originally posted by Eidolon23
Nah, acquisition is the primary motive for the guys funding it, maybe, but the guys who develop and implement it? Curiosity is a type of rocket fuel avarice can't touch.


Participation, adventure, discovery, yes, certainly, I agree, but what I meant was that we are sold dreams and aspirational models that while exciting are unrealisable for the majority, instead of allowing the natural progression of origination of ideas from individuals. We buy into a story as escapism, and then feel deflated when we realise we do not have the means to achieve a leading role in that story. Which is fine, vicariousness is elemental, however it can lead to frustration and a sense of unfulfilled entitlement.



Originally posted by Eidolon23
And this, if implemented:


After being asked at the Black Hat security conference if he’d like to see NASA supported through crowdfunding, Muirhead responded:

“God, I’d love it. The problem with my new study … is funding. Unfortunately, these missions are pretty expensive. We’d love to have the public involved, the public support. The problem is we still have to work through Congress.”

venturebeat.com...


Means that avarice could be mostly divorced from science and tech and space exploration and all the rest. The people who pitch in, and considering that Space oriented stories and memes spread fastest and furthest I bet there would be a hell of a lot of them, would be in it for love.

And awe.


That works. I like it.



Originally posted by Eidolon23
And because most that have been squashed into the settler mold are just aching for the next niche.


I agree in part with this, but you have to remember that many want to be settled, and that it is within the laws of our nature for the majority to need someone to follow, 4 in 5 in fact. Niches exist, and those who represent the 1 in 5 will find them, however, things being as they are, they may be less inclined to lead.



Originally posted by Eidolon23
But some folks are always going to seek the frontiers, and if they aren't given a legitimate and socially sanctioned route to the outer limits, they go weird. And, anyway, the two aren't mutually exclusive, especially if cooperation that fosters healthy competition is incorporated into the model.


Agreed.


Originally posted by Eidolon23
And if we do get into a bottleneck sitch, and we have successfully truncated or even bred these traits out?

We're in trouble.


I don't foresee that as ever being a problem. There will always be those who rise to the challenge as and when the need arises, I don't think it is possibly to breed it out.



Originally posted by Eidolon23
All types have their applications, widespread pathological expression indicates a broken system, not an obsolete type.


Indeed, the Behaviour Sink.


Originally posted by Eidolon23
I want to be a space farmer.


I certainly see that as being an eventual option, unlikely though in my lifetime. Carry on as we are, and it may be the only option for our survival. I would hate that to be the driving force as it would mean that we have sucked this land dry, however, since we became a settled species, that has been the model for moving on as much as it has been reaching capacity.
edit on 6-8-2013 by KilgoreTrout because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 9 2013 @ 05:16 AM
link   
From Freedom is a Double Edged Sword:


The question is, are we able to face the consequences of democracy? It is not sufficient that freedom be assured by purely negative means. Freedom is meaningless where its expression is controlled by powerful groups such as the press, the radio, the motion picture industry, churches, politicians and capitalists. Freedom must be insured.

It can only be insured by the allegiance to the principle that man has certain inalienable rights; among which are the rights:

*To live his private life, insofar as it concerns only himself, as he sees fit.

*To eat and drink, to dress, live and travel as, where and he will.

*To express himself; to speak, write, print, experiment and otherwise create as he desires.

*To work as he chooses, when he chooses and where he chooses at a reasonable and commensurate wage.

*To purchase his food, shelter, deical and social needs and all other services and commodities necessary to his existence and self expression at a reasonable and commensurate price.

*To have a decent environment and upbringing during his childhood until he reaches a responsible majority.

*To love as he desires, where, how and with whom he chooses, in accordance only with the desires of himself and of his partner.

*To the positive opportunity to enjoy these rights as he sees fit, without obstruction on the one hand or compulsion on the other.

*Finally, in order to protect his person, his property and his rights, he should have the right to kill an aggressor if necessary. This is the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms.

These rights must be counterbalanced by certain responsibilities. The liberal accepting them must guarantee these rights to all others at all times, regardless of his personal feelings or interests. He must work to establish and protect them, live in a manner commensurate with them and be prepared to defend them with his life. He must refuse allegiance to any state or organization which denies these rights and he should aid and encourage all who, without qualification or equivocation, endorse them. He must refuse to compromise these principles on any issue or for any reason.

Nothing short of such a commitment will assure the survival of liberty, or democracy of society itself. Liberalism is not only a code for individuals and their state, it is the only possible basis for a future international civilization. However, these principles will be only rhetoric unless they are revered and protected by those to whom they apply. They must be interpreted and applied with understanding and sympathy, with humor and tolerance. Pretentiousness, sentimentality or hysterics are not needed in their application or their defense. Insufferable demagogues of "high principle" are sufficiently numerous as it is.

We are one nation but we are also one world. The soul of the slums looks out of the eyes of Wall Street and the fate of a Chinese coolie determines the destiny of America. We cannot suppress our brother's liberty without suppressing our own and we cannot murder our brothers without murdering ourselves. We stand together as men for human freedom and human dignity or we will fall together, as animals, back into the jungle.

Science remaking the world; an international language, a universal brotherhood beyond nationality, prejudice or creed... A beautiful vision fallen like a house of cards. You creators of the "New Age" who dare not speak, think or move without permission from the military, you unfettered titans who will hang for speaking across one border -- where is your 'New World'? Champions, where is freedom?


Could've been written yesterday. From the OG Rocket Man, Jack Parsons. c. 1946

edit on 9-9-2013 by Eidolon23 because: (no reason given)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 05:27 AM
link   
reply to post by Eidolon23
 


"Freedom is always the freedom of the dissenter. Not because of the fanaticism of "justice", but rather because all that is instructive, wholesome, and purifying in political freedom depends on this essential characteristic, and its effects cease to work when "freedom" becomes a privilege."

Rosa Luxemburg (1871-1919)



posted on Sep, 10 2013 @ 07:29 AM
link   
reply to post by KilgoreTrout
 


Double bind: freedom and status quo seem mutually exclusive.

There must be a way off the see-saw.





top topics
 
12
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join