originally posted by: KellyPrettyBear
a reply to: KilgoreTrout
As for offense.....well I leave that
with you..... I was just explaining
that after all that lifetime of
research your comment was
not helpful in my view..
It's all good.
My question was rhetorical, but you replied so I will, belatedly, return the courtesy.
You seem jaded, perhaps an understatement.
My comment vis a vis the ceasing to chase your tail was intended to imply that you had realised that you are your own perceptual nexus. Nothing that
you perceive has meaning without you, including the alleged 'control system'. Same goes for Vallee. It doesn't matter how valiantly objectivity
is striven for, the closest that can be come to achieving that would be statistical evaluations that would merely establish a curve demonstrating
correlations of thought and perception, and a clustering mount that would denote the 'norm'. At the curve fringes would be diametrical opposites in
total conflict with both each other and the 'norm'. In short, it is an exercise in futility, but one that can be fun to explore, if you find such
things enjoyable. If you are disposed towards absolute truth, less so I should imagine.
In terms of lying, and it's inherence to the human condition, there is a reason that we have evolved with our eyes facing forward, limiting our
peripheral vision, we are predators. In all the modern religious traditions, at their basis, we have been taught that right thought, right speech and
right action lead to peace of mind and passive acceptance of the world around us. That by setting an example we can be the change that we want to
see. And, despite much evidence to the contrary, we have made enormous progress in achieving that. There are of course groups who still prey upon
other humans, who wish to take by force, who manipulate others into achieving their goals, but essentially we have made progress towards a tolerance
and acceptance of others which over-rides the instinctive tendencies to destroy difference. Laws help to enforce a system of norms and values, that
is the firm or 'hard' hand of civilisation. Myths and stories, folklore, legends, represent the 'soft' influence, and are much more effective in
instituting long term change, it is these that hold most influence over our inner world, that which we project outwards, that shape our perceptual
understanding of the world and the immediate environment that we inhabit. These stories, traded, also influence how we are perceived by others with
whom we make contact, which is why, as a form of shorthand, in modernity, which lacks the tribal markings of the past, we tend to wear or display such
information either symbolically, a cross, a star of David, or literally, a t-shirt bearing the name of a favourite band, a slogan, a sporting team or
even a cute little kitty. We invite both judgement and acceptance at the same time. We challenge authority, and assert both our individuality and
While it is easy to criticise such cultural norms and values, and the laws which are designed to create conformity and sameness, there is a necessity
to it. The vast majority of people do need a structure in which to operate. Even if the whole of civilisation fell, we would still need conforming
constraints, we would still need leaders, directors of collectivised action because while we may be social animals, dependent upon the group for our
survival in a harsh environment, the hard wiring of our brains and physiology is fundamentally selfish, which is why philosophy, since it's
inception, has sought to address that most fundamental problem. The secondary problem to that then lies in the application of those laws, and it is
this that has been tripping us up for millenia.
A quote I refer to often;
"Good laws left to the interpretation of evil men are no longer good. Therefore it follows that good laws should be framed as clearly and as
unequivocally as a written constitution, to obviate any possibility of deliberate misinterpretation and nullification. Such laws should be applicable
to all, including politicians, intelligence services (foreign and domestic) and every agent of law enforcement. Exceptions lead to general
Those who aspire to have immutable rules of conduct, good or evil, are nevertheless plagued by doubt like everyone else. Only the church believes in
saints. Absolutists and invariably absolute fools. And not least because they absolutely expect to be absolutely believed. As stated, all the the
insane are well aware whenever personal actions conflict with their true beliefs, as opposed to their socially-conditioned responses.
I believe every intelligent individual, whether predominantly good or evil, possesses a mostly idiosyncratic moral gyroscope which reminds him whether
he is in conflict with his own
moral and ethical convictions or merely those of others. Individuality is the supreme value, in my opinion, not
regimentation or servile assimilation."
That was written by Ian Brady, one of the most reviled people in Britain. A vicious and sadistic child murderer. However, he has an excellent point.
Those who obey or disobey the laws of their land do not do so because they believe in those laws, they do so based upon an evaluation of the
consequences, or a fear of being caught. Almost all of us have a moral relativity, a consideration of whether something is a crime or simply a crime
against societal norms. Drug use for example, underage sex and alcohol consumption, trespassing on someone's land because it offers a short cut.
The list, when you think about it, can be endless and whether one chooses to 'break' the laws or rules is wholly dependent on our fear of the
consequences be them legal or social. So, we might lie to protect our personal freedom and individuality, or in defiance of what we consider to be
To cut somewhat jaggedly to the chase, laws are not applied with equity. We have stories that both favour the underdog, and those that celebrate the
cut-throat capitalist. Each in their own way reenforces the status quo, providing aspirational models at both extremes and a model of sustained
social conflict. We desperately search for some form of objectivity, a just judgement and all we can come up with is a perception of a distant
unapproachable God who will get you when you're dead and deliver you to hell or heaven according to the life you led. That is the loop we are stuck
in. At one time, the gods were considered as fallible as men, subject to the entire spectrum of passions that afflict us mere mortals but that kind
of thinking gives rise to discontent amongst the oppressed and a rising up against tyranny, the promise of an afterlife is a far more effective
control mechanism. Repeatedly therefore, as a consequence of those risings and revolutions, the masses have set laws and constraints upon rule and
leadership. And it is that that needs to be understood.
There are exploitative people and entities in this world, there are also extraordinarily wonderful ones, gods amongst men (and women). To paraphrase
George Bernard Shaw, we demand our rights to freedom of speech and expression while failing to protect what is most important, our freedom of thought.
Until such a time as it is safe to do otherwise, the right to lie is integral to protecting that.