Dr. Jacques Vallee ~ The Control System

a reply to: lostgirl

Don't get me wrong, I love Tolkien, but his work is highly derivative, hence the familiarity and there is a huge, huge problem with that in a sense. Taken for what it is, Tolkien's own, very personal, inner fantasy-world, it is brilliant escapist, adventurism, and a great way for children to ferment imagination, but beyond that it is limited, largely because he is making metaphors of metaphors rather than unravelling them. This is very much part of the problem, as I see it. He does it far better than Rowling's Harry Potter series, but still, it is about as useless to us and more or less reflects the world in which he was writing to in. That world was based on racial perceptions of difference which is transliterated into his constructed fantasy-world, and the danger of that, is that he drew from popular mythology from around Europe in order to construct that world. CS Lewis's Narnia series is the same. What they are extremely good for, is deconstructing the popular mythos and beliefs of the establishment. Do that and you can see why everything went so horribly wrong.

Lewis and Tolkien, fellow Freemasons discussing symbolism and esoterism over a pint in the Lion and Eagle pub resulted in a great body of fantasy literature, but it didn't move us forward towards what is needed, if anything it set us back. They both need to be read with a measure of understanding of the deep effect that the brutality of the First and Second world wars had on those two generations of men. Folk tales and lore construct stories that help enforce the norms and values of society, using metaphors as pointers towards common dangers, helping to educate and inform the society to which they apply to allow for independent choice and decision, that is, to equip children to become adults. Taken out of the societal context that formed them they lose that direct relevance, but are still of course entertaining, that is largely all they are and can be though. We stand, at this point in time, with a whole host of derivative material. Metaphors and personalised interpretations built on more metaphors and personalised interpretations.

It's like Windows. They keep building on top of the previous operating system to fix a problem that is in DOS. We don't need anymore add-ons, or reboots, we need to get back down to the initial software and start over. Partly because that operating system has sent us the wrong way, and partly because we live in a global community.

originally posted by: Bybyots


With all of the chivalry and pageantry and jousting, it's easy even for me to forget that the Knights of The Round Table quest for the Holy Grail to heal Arthur, who has been gravely injured, so that the land will be healed.

La Reine de la Terre Gaste?

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

"derivitive" perhaps, yet there's no denying the beauty - and if there's one thing the world could use more of, it is just such:
"beauties, which pierce like swords or burn like cold iron.", C.S. Lewis - on Tolkien's "The Lord of the Rings"

Yes, you wrote us a lovely, informative little essay - unfortunately, it rather missed the point of the post you were replying to...

...And how many times have you read "The Silmarillion"? Was it the 2nd edition (published 2001), which included an extremely detailed letter from Tolkien to his editor explaining the 'why's and wherefores' of the very beginnings of the 'beginnings' (going back to his childhood, actually - before WW1) of Middle-Earth (which evolved out of his early interest in philology, as he began creating his 'Elven' languages)...

Oh, the 'show-offs' in this thread...including myself, admittedly!

a reply to: Kantzveldt

Thank you for the 'tune', it sounds a bit as I imagine Tolkien's "Lay of Leithian" might have been intended...

a reply to: lostgirl

I apologise, I should have been more explicit. The singing into creation you were reminded of. Tolkien derived those ideas from St Augustine, who in turn derived them from Plotinus, hence their familiarity. I did not question the beauty, only emphasised that they were a fantasy, an idealisation. He was the product of an English Grammar School education, too many lessons spent studying the Punic Wars no doubt. Idealism met with the realities of the two wars and left two generations of men brutalised, heartbroken, regressed into themselves at the futility of it all. The world he created in the Silmarillion offered him an escape from all that to an imagined time of innocence that had never ever existed. The LOTR trilogy is more of the manifestation of his real life experiences of war, both from his parents and his own generation, married with that world. The eternal battle of the forces of light over darkness, another fantasy, but one borne out of a need to understand those events within himself. Kind of like an attempt to project the inside out. As I said, I like Tolkien very much and most stories are derived, in fact only a few actual stories in circulation but infinite variations there of.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
in fact only a few actual stories in circulation but infinite variations there of.

Oh, I know - "Hero With a Thousand Faces" and all that...

...which actually leads us back on topic (in the recent 'direction' it had turned, at any rate), with the question of the 'control system' and it's use of 'story/archetypes' and what the possible 'goal' of such stuff - as those "dreams are made on" (sorry, couldn't resist) - might be...

I mean to say, with so many generations, upon generations, upon generations of the same 'stories' over and over again - doesn't it seem that by now the control system would have had some success at "growing" civilization into a more 'idealistic' reality?

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
The eternal battle of the forces of light over darkness, another fantasy, but one borne out of a need to understand those events within himself. Kind of like an attempt to project the inside out.

I don't want to keep 'nattering' on about Tolkien, but I have to point out - because it's a more intriguing perspective, given his vociferous distaste for allegory - that Tolkien's "cosmogony" (as he terms it) is much more concerned with the nature of the "fall" of light 'into' darkness than the battle between the two (the events of the LOTR trilogy simply being the continuing and completing of the 'originating' "fall", told of in the "Ainulindale")...

...thus making his character "Melkor/Morgoth" very nearly a 'mirror image' of the Christian (Tolkien was a staunch Catholic) conception of "Lucifer"...
Then again maybe it's just intriguing to me, as I find the unintended use of the allegory amusingly ironic...

originally posted by: The GUT
a reply to: TangerineShrike?!

I am reading both the links you suggested (thank you) and will be back to post after having done so. I don't get the Shrike?! reference. If you suspect that I might be someone named Shrike using a new screen name, be assured that I am not.

originally posted by: lostgirl

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
in fact only a few actual stories in circulation but infinite variations there of.

Oh, I know - "Hero With a Thousand Faces" and all that...

...which actually leads us back on topic (in the recent 'direction' it had turned, at any rate), with the question of the 'control system' and it's use of 'story/archetypes' and what the possible 'goal' of such stuff - as those "dreams are made on" (sorry, couldn't resist) - might be...

I mean to say, with so many generations, upon generations, upon generations of the same 'stories' over and over again - doesn't it seem that by now the control system would have had some success at "growing" civilization into a more 'idealistic' reality?

Civilization cannot grow into a more 'idealistic' reality as long as religion rules for in order for civilization to progress mental conditioning has to end and there is no end in sight. "Civil-ization) is doomed to war-mongering as you can see by studying history up to the present. Idealistic is atheism which is a natural state when you are born but is soon corrupted by mental condition favoring religious beliefs.

Control is being exercised by religion at home and in governments. And if you try to go afoul of them you are digging your grave. You can see that in effect right now with the US gov't: you speak against Israel and your life is worth-less.

While Vallee may have had other meanings to his "control system" the truth is that only the weak minded are affected, not us strong-willed free thinkers.

Unfortunately, even us strong-willed free thinkers are under some sort of control by the weak minded called politicians. Fortunately, I'm aware of this situation and I'm not directly affected.

a reply to: Uggielicious

Idealistic is atheism which is a natural state when you are born

and yet

en.wikipedia.org...

The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level.

I know he has his critics but maybe things arent as black or white

the truth is that only the weak minded are affected, not us strong-willed free thinkers.

hmmm..weak willed thinkers while beleiving in a deity were also probably responsibible from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge...and setting themselves free.

Your position in blaming war mongering on religion is partly correct. Of more significance is the quest for resources and power...religion is used to mask the real underlying reason

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: Uggielicious

Idealistic is atheism which is a natural state when you are born

and yet

en.wikipedia.org...

[uggielicious: I went to the wikipedia link and this is what it says in the opening paragraph: "The God gene hypothesis/ theory proposes that a specific gene (VMAT2) predisposes humans towards spiritual or mystic experiences. The idea has been postulated by geneticist Dean Hamer, the director of the Gene Structure and Regulation Unit at the U.S. National Cancer Institute, and author of the 2005 book The God Gene: How Faith is Hardwired into our Genes." It's a theory, an idea. Common sense, logic and reason argue against his proposal. Mental conditioning is real and not a theory or an idea. It works. Just ask the 918 people who died in the settlementdead of Jonestown under the direction of "Rev." Jim Jones. Or the Heaven's Gate group, or all of the cult victims. Not a single one of them knew anything about beliefs until they started to come in while they were young with impressive minds. You know, how a person will turn out is prevalent on who gets to their mind first. If the parents are not religious and educate the child properly an atheist will develop. Or parents who condition their children to not settle for less than evidence. As in the Jones massacre, the majority were blacks and it's safe to say that the majority of blacks are born into highly religious environments so they are easy to manipulate mentally. The "rev." Al Sharpton knows this and exploits it to give himself the rich life he enjoys. In reality, he and all of his ilk are like fleas o humanity.]

The God gene hypothesis is based on a combination of behavioral genetic, neurobiological and psychological studies. The major arguments of the hypothesis are: (1) spirituality can be quantified by psychometric measurements; (2) the underlying tendency to spirituality is partially heritable; (3) part of this heritability can be attributed to the gene VMAT2;[1] (4) this gene acts by altering monoamine levels; and (5) spiritual individuals are favored by natural selection because they are provided with an innate sense of optimism, the latter producing positive effects at either a physical or psychological level.

I know he has his critics but maybe things arent as black or white

[uggielicious: Things are black and white. Either you are like me, without a belief system which keeps me totally aware and free from the belief baggage that all believers carry and which affects their thinking, or you are a believer.]

the truth is that only the weak minded are affected, not us strong-willed free thinkers.

hmmm..weak willed thinkers while beleiving in a deity were also probably responsibible from eating of the fruit of the tree of knowledge...and setting themselves free.

[uggielicious: Please stick to reality and don't weaken to fantasy.]

Your position in blaming war mongering on religion is partly correct. Of more significance is the quest for resources and power...religion is used to mask the real underlying reason

[uggielicious: Religion has always been used because the fear of god is what believers react to. Our present government uses religion like a mace, especially the Supreme Court judges. But the politicians know a good thing too and using religion as a basis for wars in countries that we have an interest in, as with oil for example. The Templars, Columbus, conquerors, all used religion to gain what was not theirs.

I should point out that our merry band of DARPA narrative folks turn up in the sordid tale of #gamergate.

originally posted by: Uggielicious
Civilization cannot grow into a more 'idealistic' reality as long as religion rules for in order for civilization to progress mental conditioning has to end and there is no end in sight.

Religion is a governmental construct which has little relationship to spirituality aside from mercenary use of it, in much the same way that politics use religion.

Civilization is likely to progress best with the larger-vision of humanity's role in the universe and on our planet, though that is just a theory, than via the idea that we are all a meaningless accident in a spiritually-vacuous environment.

Idealistic is atheism which is a natural state when you are born but is soon corrupted by mental condition favoring religious beliefs.

I disagree. Atheism is an official belief-about-god and hence is philosophically a religion of its own, even without a church.

I've seen just as much obtuse lunacy in the name of Atheism as I've seen in the name of God. Just not as many funded weapons. Yet.

The development of spiritual beliefs in pretty well every culture on planet earth suggests that a capacity for the awareness of something we might call divine (for lack of a better word) is fundamental to humans as creatures. Assuming that humans are 'born atheists' is ridiculously superstitious and without base -- there is no evidence for such a thing -- that's the kind of claim the worst folks defending religion would make, it's just on the other side.

Religious Fundamentalists and rabid atheists are the same personality profile in my experience -- it is all a form of psychological pathology. If one were truly objective, if they had no experience of the divine, they would simply have no reason to have any opinion on the concept of God either way, except as something that did not yet have any evidence and so, who cares.

Atheism is not the opposite of organized religion, it is just another uniform often in knee-jerk reaction to it.

The opposite of organized religion is innate spirituality. The kind that makes religion look like the somewhat ludicrous carnival dress-up governmental game it is.

(Albeit, many good people are part of it and many good things are also done via it, not to be too biased to recognize that. That the 'construct' of it has been and is used to do many bad things, directly and indirectly, does not mean that every person or action they take within it is bad. Many lovely people and incredibly altruistic things do go on.)

While Vallee may have had other meanings to his "control system" the truth is that only the weak minded are affected, not us strong-willed free thinkers.

Now that's funny. That paradigm probably traps man and hoists him by his ego under the umbrella of some of the most controlled situations ever.

"Reaction" to what is most "obviously" perceived as a controlling element is a lot like rebellion against parental authority; you can plan it, and market to it, and structure it, and control it. It's the Great Rock & Roll Scandal (pre-planned punk) -- this happens on many levels, including cultural levels, such as the belief that Atheism is for people with brains and a belief in God is for idiots -- that's just its own doorway, step right through here please; it is not freedom of thought.

What Vallee was referring to was utterly pervasive and extremely subtle. If it were as obvious as "organized religion sucks, don't let it rule your brain" he wouldn't have needed to present it in the way he did, I suspect.

a reply to: RedCairo

I agree with you on every point and appreciate the logical, eloquent way you expressed it all..

originally posted by: lostgirl
a reply to: RedCairo

I agree with you on every point and appreciate the logical, eloquent way you expressed it all..

Talk about brothers in arms! "...logical, eloquent..."? Missed by a mile! He has no concept of what religion and atheism is so that his words do not make sense.

You cannot pigeonhole Vallee because his theories are all over the place simply because all he can do speculate about something that's foreign to everyone. He is more entertaining but it's just one man's opinion. Drake tried it with his paradox and he has his untold followers. Even Sagan made comments he couldn't support. The field is open to every possibility.

a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Wow. You are fantastically and staggeringly incorrect in your assessment of Tolkien. I am stunned, but I suppose if one must, "sin boldly"!

originally posted by: Kapriti
a reply to: KilgoreTrout

Wow. You are fantastically and staggeringly incorrect in your assessment of Tolkien. I am stunned, but I suppose if one must, "sin boldly"!

Well don't be shy, Honey. Contribute to the discussion and point out the error of my ways.

I actually think this thread is finally going somewhere again after rather a prolonged period of stagnant looping. The more the merrier in my opinion, so don't hold back, I'm a big girl, I can take it.

I am kind of spoilt for choice here and really not sure where to dive in. Decisions, decisions

Atheism is no less of a belief system than any other, and is becoming even more so, particularly in the US. It has a reactionary element to it, a rejection of the status quo and as such, it has far more in common with the early origins of Christianity which was, and perhaps should still be, a stand against oppression and an acceptance of persecution, of marytrdom as a means by which to most clearly demonstrate the evils inherent in organised, 'civilised' life. Atheism has in turn become as reactive to the oppressive nature of fundamentalist religion.

I disagree strongly that atheism is our 'natural state'. A child, without any prompting, believes without question and is naturally fearful of anything that falls outside of it's prior experience. How those fears are dealt with will shape it's perception of the world in future, but inherently, the child fears the unknown and the unseen. If we take that point as the basis of beliefs how they are structured into our sense of self and belonging, then we can perhaps appreciate that atheism is merely a restructuring of the way in which that primal fear is dealt with.

In today's world, with all our scientific and technological advances, much can be explained to our children without further enhancing their fear of the unseen. We are no longer forced to resort to stories and parables in order to explain how most of nature works, for example. Both the religious and the atheist can explain what thunder is in actuality, instead of attributing it to a god who dwells in the mountains using his hammer to bring forth rain, and that the reason people die is because of viral pathogens and bacterial infections, and not because of evil spirits carried in the summer winds. Science and technology therefore have undone the need for superstitions. This is an excellent development because it does away with the need to blame, it does away with the need to sacrifice and atone for what we perceived to be our role in bringing disease and pestilence upon ourselves by incurring the wrath of the gods. It is progress.

Beyond our own biosphere however, much is based within the realm of theorem. There may have been a Big Bang, which may have begun the process of expansion that led to the creation of this universe. What initiated that Big Bang is very much a dark area. The atheist, therefore, believes that science will eventually offer an explanation, while the religious believe that the explanation is God. At this stage, each viewpoint is equally valid.

The 'spiritual', on the other hand, don't honestly care either way. It is largely an irrelevancy. What the spiritual believe is that through refinement of the inner world or self, the outer world is given it's form. And it is this that is the basis, and origin, of all religions and is an extension of shamanic belief systems. Such spirit based religions have throughout history become corrupted as a result of the problems of administration of those beliefs and a mistaken need to homogenise. As well as, but as importantly...or perhaps even more importantly...a desire to rush things.

I've been pondering this whole 'big, bad church' deal regarding organised religions. I know that it is an obvious connection, Roman Empire, Roman Church...but I kept getting the Life of Brian, 'What have the Romans ever done for us?' running through my head. You all know the one, but it is always worthy of repeat...



You see, I don't know about anyone else here, but I am not of noble birth. All the way back, as far as I can trace, my ancestors were common working Joes and Janes, largely land and domestic. Now admittedly, prior to the arrival of the Roman Empire, they would have lived in tribal groups, and as a woman, I would have had relative autonomy. And, with tribal warfare, it was a pretty violent world to live in.

The collapse and subsequent contraction of the Roman Empire led to the rise of feudalism, which was really not a great development socio-economically. Highly restrictive of movement and almost a literal ownership of the peasants by the regional lords. The church didn't change that, immediately, but it did mediate it. More importantly, it spread literacy, education and health care. Education is empowering. The world as it is today would not have occurred, would not be even remotely the same, had not education become a right of all. Had not the Christian church existed, it can only be wondered when education would have become a right and not a privilege.

Besides, there is this other thing, and this, I believe ties in tightly with the OP, the church was not really responsible for all the abuses it is accused of. They may have partaken, but the vast majority of the key abuses were sanctioned by state. KPB mentioned book burnings a few pages back. Look into it. I think of the 100s of book burnings that have taken place over the course of history, may be one or two were committed by the church. The rest, the vast majority, were committed by secular powers. The crux of the issue is, in the beginning at least, that the whole seperation of church from state, and vice versa, was not because the state wanted freedom from religious oppression. It was because the state wanted freedom from it's moderating influence.

I am not pro-church. I work for a church (singular, a building), not the church. I know that certainly in modernity the church has suffered corruption within it's ranks both materially and morally, but, it was the church that brought us out of the dark ages, and it did that through education. Plain and simple. How many of us here, sitting at our PCs can honestly say that access to education, literacy and books has not benefited us, individually and collectively? Which brings me to another thing, you don't see it as much these days, not on ATS at least, but when I first joined, there was a huge drive to discredit and demonise the Jesuits. The whole Black Pope thing? Heard of it? I am sure if you have more than a passing interest in conspiracy you have. Anyway, the Jesuits, if you read about them objectively rather than just on line, are great advocates of education and research, covering science through to literature, and they are big on mediating over foreign relations and policy. Hence the drive to discredit and demonise them. There is no ground otherwise. Not one iota of evidence to support a myriad of bizarre claims as to their evil intents. What is more, Jesuit initiates/novices follow an evolved form of the 'Exercises' laid out by their founder Ignatius Loyola. The exercises are on a par with the spiritual practices of most of the major mystic traditions, aimed at cleansing and perfecting the spirit...making good men better...the outside like the inside, and the inside like the outside, etc. At times, not even the Popes have liked them, variously excommunicating them because they were overly critical of some of the more materialistic aims of the church as well as their liberal approach to education.

Anyway, without babbling on too much longer, my point is, again in the context of the OP, is when something is pushed in our face, seemingly popular but more realistically publicised, that is when we should be looking at what the other hand is doing. This applies to the UFO phenomenon as much as it applies to the demonising of the church to negate it's influence. We are, as a species, incredibly easily distracted by all that glitters and it is essential that we understand that about ourselves. Playing the blame game is too easy, we all do it from time to time. If something is getting lots of coverage, if something seems too neat and convenient, we should be questioning it at every turn. It's the old Goebbels quote about if you repeat a lie often enough people start to believe it. Same goes for on here, we are not immune, I know I'm not anyway, I can get awfully excited about certain types of shiny. The key here though is repetition and reproduction on multiple sites of the same material or perspective.

originally posted by: KilgoreTrout
I am kind of spoilt for choice here and really not sure where to dive in. Decisions, decisions

Atheism is no less of a belief system than any other, and is becoming even more so, particularly in the US. It has a reactionary element to it, a rejection of the status quo and as such, it has far more in common with the early origins of Christianity which was, and perhaps should still be, a stand against oppression and an acceptance of persecution, of marytrdom as a means by which to most clearly demonstrate the evils inherent in organised, 'civilised' life. Atheism has in turn become as reactive to the oppressive nature of fundamentalist religion.

I disagree strongly that atheism is our 'natural state'. A child, without any prompting, believes without question and is naturally fearful of anything that falls outside of it's prior experience. How those fears are dealt with will shape it's perception of the world in future, but inherently, the child fears the unknown and the unseen. If we take that point as the basis of beliefs how they are structured into our sense of self and belonging, then we can perhaps appreciate that atheism is merely a restructuring of the way in which that primal fear is dealt with.

In today's world, with all our scientific and technological advances, much can be explained to our children without further enhancing their fear of the unseen. We are no longer forced to resort to stories and parables in order to explain how most of nature works, for example. Both the religious and the atheist can explain what thunder is in actuality, instead of attributing it to a god who dwells in the mountains using his hammer to bring forth rain, and that the reason people die is because of viral pathogens and bacterial infections, and not because of evil spirits carried in the summer winds. Science and technology therefore have undone the need for superstitions. This is an excellent development because it does away with the need to blame, it does away with the need to sacrifice and atone for what we perceived to be our role in bringing disease and pestilence upon ourselves by incurring the wrath of the gods. It is progress.

Beyond our own biosphere however, much is based within the realm of theorem. There may have been a Big Bang, which may have begun the process of expansion that led to the creation of this universe. What initiated that Big Bang is very much a dark area. The atheist, therefore, believes that science will eventually offer an explanation, while the religious believe that the explanation is God. At this stage, each viewpoint is equally valid.

The 'spiritual', on the other hand, don't honestly care either way. It is largely an irrelevancy. What the spiritual believe is that through refinement of the inner world or self, the outer world is given it's form. And it is this that is the basis, and origin, of all religions and is an extension of shamanic belief systems. Such spirit based religions have throughout history become corrupted as a result of the problems of administration of those beliefs and a mistaken need to homogenise. As well as, but as importantly...or perhaps even more importantly...a desire to rush things.

Atheism is the position that there is no God. As such, it is a belief and, in some cases, may even be a belief system but it is not, as Red Cairo argued, religion. Religion is the performance of ritual on behalf of or in obeyance to a supernatural deity or deities. To argue that atheism is a religion would suggest that holding the position that unicorns do not exist is a religion or believing that Bigfoot exists is a religion or following sports on a regular basis is a religion.

Obviously, atheism is a reaction against something. It's a position taken as a reaction against the position that there is a God. Atheism isn't the natural state of a newborn child because a child isn't born knowing that some people hold the position that God exists. If agnosticism may be defined as either holding the position that one is uncertain whether or not there is a God or holding no position about the existence of God then agnosticism of the latter type is the natural state of a newborn child.

I don't think that newborns have an innate fear of anything other than falling. Older children do not always believe without questioning. How many times do parents, despite their best efforts, fail to convince children that something new (clowns, for example) won't hurt them?

I'm not sure your beliefs about atheists hold water. Atheists do not all believe that science holds the answers to (fill in the blank). The only thing that can be said about atheists is that they have taken the position that there is no God. You seem to want to attribute to them a belief system that they don't all share.

The same is true about those you categorize as spiritual. You say that the spiritual don't care one way or another whether God or science holds the answers to (fill in the blank). I don't know how you've reached the conclusion that they don't care. Some may not but some do care. I also don't understand how you decided that spiritual people believe that refinement of the self gives the outer world its form. Some may certainly believe that but not all. I know people who describe themselves as spiritual who hold a wide variety of beliefs.

You've made some sweeping and, I would argue, incorrect generalizations about groups of people. Among these generalizations is the notion that early religions were based on fear. Many (maybe all) early pagans regarded everything as living and having "spirit". How one should interact with those animate beings might have been a significant force in developing early religions. Fear probably did play some role, but not the major role as it did with the formation of monotheistic religions.

Could you be speaking from the viewpoint of a Judeo-Christian monotheist who sees everyone else's beliefs/belief systems through the eyes of monotheism?