Reply to topic  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next
Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think 
Author Message
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
"Their mind and what I am trying to do with it. Not a safe space and we don't hand out crayons."

- found on the opening page of Topic of Topics forum (or ToTsbox, for short, but what's in a name?)

(me mutters to myself: "Of course not, you lot want to hoard all the crayons for yourself.") :jest:

What I find humorous is ... "Their Mind" is nothing new. The koolaid klub over at ToTs treat it as if it were some big discovery ... perhaps even the most important discovery in the history of human time.

In fact, ToTsbox makes a mockery of the timeless battle between good and evil (a battle that primarily exists outside the individual and only minorly within the individual) ... by repositioning this battle entirely within the individual.

And we know that this battle is primarily outside, because human nature is essentially hardwired in early childhood (with various factors such as prenatal and postnatal nutrition playing a significant role in the hardwiring). Soft-wiring from the environment then directs us to a smaller extent. Hardwired good souls and hardwired bad souls then do battle against each other in the environmental ring, as it were. IOW, the battle is outside the individual and between good and bad individuals. This is the rule. Of course, you'll always have exceptions to the rule, e.g. a battle within the individual created by the dueling voices of the white wing and the red fork as they whisper into opposite ears from opposite shoulders. But these inner battles are conditioned by things beyond our hardwired nature and are usually only found in hardwired good souls.

Indeed, hardwired good people have these inner battles as a rule ... and hardwired bad people have the battles as an exception.

In the standard normal distribution of psychological natures, the good natures are reflective about things greater than the self. The bad natures reflect only on advantage to the self. Thus, when acolytes of Their Mind prescribe that we all take the battle inside ourselves, what they are really demanding is that the good people - already hardwired to be good - learn to be better. The acolytes understand that the bad people will not accommodate this battle, yet these acolytes are okay with not addressing the many problems created by the population of bad people. They just want the good people to behave better. They have no clue on how to arrest the behaviours of the bad people, who are beyond the purview of Their Mind self-healing.

End result: these cherubs in the sandbox only know how to lecture the good people on becoming better people, as if the good people themselves had no clue on bettering themselves. As if. In the meantime, the bad people are free to continue with their sociopathic takeover of the planet, and the acolytes of Their Mind have nothing to offer the bad people but a spread-eagled posture. Certainly not resistance.

"Come and usufruct me! I am yours!" - para-quoting The High Priestess Of The Wellness Pond In Purgatory


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue May 09, 2017 6:01 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
9eagle9 wrote:
Quote:
For people that obsessed with getting rid of us you gotta wonder why they are looking over the fence to see what we're doing.


You've become a curiosity shop, Eagles. No other reason, at least for myself.

Certainly, the Their Mind Stuff (TMS) is nothing unique in and of itself. Large chunks of it are even mirrored here in Chico's many sepulchral dissertations on sociopathy, hereon in known as Shades Of Sociopathy (SOS).

Alas, great writers from the now to way back into antiquity, have covered the problematic psychological half-spectrum with far more depth and detail than any watered-down attempts at understanding aberrant human psychology by either TMS or SOS.

And I suspect great writers in the near and far future will still be tackling the problematic half-spectrum for answers.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Tue May 09, 2017 6:34 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
UncleZook wrote:
Large chunks of it are even mirrored here in Chico's many sepulchral dissertations on sociopathy, hereon in known as Shades Of Sociopathy (SOS).

Sepulchral ? !

  • gloomy; dismal.
    "a speech delivered in sepulchral tones"
:lol:

UncleZook wrote:
Alas, great writers from the now to way back into antiquity, have covered the problematic psychological half-spectrum with far more depth and detail than any watered-down attempts at understanding aberrant human psychology by either TMS or SOS.

Hey Zook! Instead of trying to discredit me as usual (sociopaths love to do this, I know...), why don't you make yourself useful and actually show us all how these "great writers from the now to way back into antiquity" have addressed, analyzed, and clarified sociopathy in a better way ("with far more depth and detail") than I have done! I would be delighted to have this kind of information presented in the forum in a clear and precise manner.

Think you can do it?

I'm serious. I would love to see you back up your above claim. The better sociopathy is understood, the better the chances of humanity surviving.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Tue May 09, 2017 7:39 pm
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical thinking
There is no appetite left at Universal to discuss "Their Mind" further. The emotional matrix archives have been preserved by dutiful worker bees who have built a new hive over at the ToTsbox. The Queen Bee, she is not amused. But time will settle her nicely as the workers toil night and day for her leisure, and she will soon forget why she has been punted from the latest forum to punt her.

I'm now going to initiate a full frontal attack on the Emotional Matrix cult content (and its membership) over here at Chico's forum. Not because I enjoy it (well maybe a little), but it has become absolutely clear to me that the domain of psychology is an important battlefield between the critical thinkers, and the pied pipers paid by the corrupt system (either directly or indirectly) to detour the masses away from critical thought. The alternative is to ignore these pied pipers, and let them make off with the children of Hamelin. But that interferes with what I'm trying to do, namely, raise awareness about the real source behind the global ills; with eternally springing hope that enough of the masses engage/re-engage their critical thought centers and trigger a critical mass in awareness.

Indeed, the battle between good and evil manifests in yet another form, namely, the battle between critical thinkers and pied pipers.

Further forms include tiger spotters and navel gazers. Philosophers and solipsists. Rationals and irrationals.


Pax

ps: Henceforth, "Their Mind Stuff" and solipsistic narrative will be known as TMS ... and Chico's solipsistic narrative aka Shades Of Sociopathy will be known as SOS.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed May 10, 2017 3:31 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
UncleZook wrote:
I'm now going to initiate a full frontal attack on the Emotional Matrix cult content (and its membership) over here at Chico's forum.

I am curious to hear more about the "Emotional Matrix cult content", as I am not at all clear about what you mean.

UncleZook wrote:
... it has become absolutely clear to me that the domain of psychology is an important battlefield between the critical thinkers, and the pied pipers paid by the corrupt system (either directly or indirectly) to detour the masses away from critical thought. The alternative is to ignore these pied pipers, and let them make off with the children of Hamelin.

Different psychologies play crucial roles, as I have tried to understand and simplify with my model of how the world works. I have beat on this model for quite some time, and it has withstood all challenges without the need for any modifications. You may disagree, and you have in the past, which is certainly allowed and encouraged. But I bring this up only so that I may better understand your perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the "critical thinkers" that you refer to as the Independents. The "pied pipers" are the Minions. The "children of Hamelin" are the Followers, and the "corrupt system" would be the Sociopaths.

Would that be a fair mapping of what you are describing?

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Wed May 10, 2017 4:51 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
UncleZook wrote:
I'm now going to initiate a full frontal attack on the Emotional Matrix cult content (and its membership) over here at Chico's forum.

I am curious to hear more about the "Emotional Matrix cult content", as I am not at all clear about what you mean.


It's basically psychobabble that originated in a thread on Universal, namely, "Their Mind and the Emotional Matrix".

The cult is essentially a quincunx of five individuals ... four intellectual eunuchs standing on guard at each corner [Reaver, 8t88, Aikisaw, Vajrayaya] ... and, of course, the cunning quincunx queen, Eagles, reclining in the center.

The content speaks for itself: another pseudo-intellectual packaging of stuff that cannot be packaged, only observed, for the stuff is as vast as the ocean and as deep. The stuff is the mind. The packaging of the stuff is "Their Mind". Statistical methods are the only tools that can measure the stuff with any scholarship. But TMS exists beyond the scope of statistical methods. It is the purview of shamans and unshakeable faith. It conjectures about demons, entities, spirits, viruses, etc. It offers the cleansing method of self-absorption, total absorption, and rededication to the self at the expense of community. We are all, apparently, a victim of its programming including those of us who aren't. And therein lies the solipsism of TMS, it has only one meaningful relation, itself. It does not recognise anything outside itself.

To capture the essence of TMS, Chico ... we must all journey away from the sagacity of "it takes a village to raise a kid" and enter the sovereignty of "the self" (as if the self occurred from thin air via fiat decree as opposed to a long slow process of synthesis). All vices are blamed on the village. All virtues are claimed by the self. That sorta thing.

In short, reasonable community is sacrificed for an unreasonable proportion of the self. And in this sacrifice, the reasonable community of coming together to face the tiger in the tall grass is surrendered to the unreasonable proportion of self that imagines it doesn't need any community.

Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
... it has become absolutely clear to me that the domain of psychology is an important battlefield between the critical thinkers, and the pied pipers paid by the corrupt system (either directly or indirectly) to detour the masses away from critical thought. The alternative is to ignore these pied pipers, and let them make off with the children of Hamelin.

Different psychologies play crucial roles, as I have tried to understand and simplify with my model of how the world works. I have beat on this model for quite some time, and it has withstood all challenges without the need for any modifications. You may disagree, and you have in the past, which is certainly allowed and encouraged. But I bring this up only so that I may better understand your perspective. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I see the "critical thinkers" that you refer to as the Independents. The "pied pipers" are the Minions. The "children of Hamelin" are the Followers, and the "corrupt system" would be the Sociopaths.

Would that be a fair mapping of what you are describing?


Yours is a different argument. The corrupt system, IMA, is the architecture. The critical thinkers are the keen observers of this architecture. The pied pipers are the maintenance workers of this architecture. The children of Hamelin are the sundry masses that populate this architecture and who are blissfully indifferent or unaware of the greater plan for them.

The main feature of my argument is the architecture, e.g. the secretive sinister organization. IMO, psychology (observation of human behaviour) is separate from the observation of architecture. Moreover, observation of human behaviour has no endpoints. Human behaviour will continue to be observed for millennia to come, or at least until something catastrophic like, say, the cyborg-ation of the species beyond the 50-50 hybrid threshold arrives, at which point we will no longer observe the species as we know it. Methods like fMRI are pushing us towards a mechanical ends to the species and the commencement of a brave new world beginning. Indeed, Aldous Huxley was an elitist and tribalist, and tribalists in the narrative of modern enlightenment are anachronisms, e.g. primitive specimens. Today we can call them sociopaths with justified prejudice because they don't fit in with the modern memes of society. Yesterday they were nobles. Far far back in the yestermillennia, they were savages. As we move through time and space, there's a good chance humanity will transit through sundry cycles of nobility and savagery. Yesterday's noble is today's savage; and today's noble will become tomorrow's savage. Throw in a nuclear conflagration now and then, and evolutionary time will step back a few decades, centuries, or even millennia. That sorta thing.

Moving on to the observation of architecture, we find that architecture is more volatile than human nature. We can afford to shelve the observation of human nature for long periods of time. But the volatility of architecture behooves us to defend it if it's a favourable structure ... or offend it, it if it's a toxic architecture.

Ergo, the consideration of relative volatility alone orients and prioritizes the just battle and holds the paramountcy of one observation over the other. TMS is an exercise in subverting this paramountcy; and Eagles is cracking the ringmaster's whip even if some clueless system-applauded mindfcukking pleasure-at-all-costs uberhedonist (like Casteneda) is credited with ownership of it.

IMO, looking for direction from moths drawn to the sociopathic flame (like Nietzsche and Castaneda), is only setting oneself up for the singe.


Pax

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Wed May 10, 2017 9:34 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
Thank you for clarifying.

UncleZook wrote:
The main feature of my argument is the architecture, e.g. the secretive sinister organization.

The main feature of my argument is the psychology that designs and constructs the architecture. The architecture is a product of the psychology, because humans create the architecture. Yes, there are feedback loops that allow the architecture to influence the psychology, which then influences the architecture, and so on, and this makes things complicated and convoluted.

But we don't need to rehash our different perspectives here. You have a purpose in creating this thread, and I am interested to see where you take it, given that you have greater and closer experience dealing with the ToT forum "big guns" than I do. I only got to engage with them in four posts before it was made clear that dissenting voices were not welcome. "Forum" founder 8t88 made it quite clear:

8t88 wrote:
Chicodoodoo wrote:
Because a forum is not about like-mindedness or getting along, it's about hearing all voices and considering all perspectives. That's why it's called a forum.

Whoever suggested that we call this abomination 'forum' will be severely punished. Thanks for this clarification. We didn't know what we are doing. Sorry.

Lots of Freudian slips coming from 8t88 there! The ToT website page still calls it a forum, and one made especially for people like me:

"A forum for people who have already gathered enough evidence to know the world is seriously screwed up"

Hypocrites! And quite possibly a gang of sociopaths.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu May 11, 2017 12:22 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
A couple of things jump out at me on rereading your post, Zook.

UncleZook wrote:
To capture the essence of TMS, Chico ... we must all journey away from the sagacity of "it takes a village to raise a kid" and enter the sovereignty of "the self" (as if the self occurred from thin air via fiat decree as opposed to a long slow process of synthesis). All vices are blamed on the village. All virtues are claimed by the self.

So it's highly selfish. Avalon members would discuss this as "service to self" back in the day. Receiving "their mind" and incorporating it is the equivalent of what I call the sociopaths molding us in their image.

UncleZook wrote:
IMO, psychology (observation of human behaviour) is separate from the observation of architecture.

Psychology is not the observation of human behavior. It is the source of human behavior.

Yes, when it first started out, psychology was the observation of human behavior. All science starts out as observation. But as psychology gained knowledge through observation, experimentation, and verification, it became clear that psychology is the investigation into what causes human behavior. This will necessarily change your subsequent arguments, so I won't address them.

UncleZook wrote:
Moving on to the observation of architecture, we find that architecture is more volatile than human nature.

The fundamentals of the existing architecture, "e.g. the secretive sinister organization", are quite stable. Don't we measure the existing architecture in thousands of years? It is the rule of the Sociopaths, and it is so old that we cannot really say when it began. Human nature, or psychology, is probably just as stable, for it is the dynamic between the respective psychologies involved that gives the rule of Sociopaths its exceptional longevity.

UncleZook wrote:
Ergo, the consideration of relative volatility alone orients and prioritizes the just battle and holds the paramountcy of one observation over the other.

Perhaps you can see now why you shouldn't make this conclusion.

Sorry, I know I shouldn't distract you from your full frontal attack of TMS. You are welcome to ignore my comments and proceed with the attack. I've already enjoyed your observation of the incredibly selfish nature of TMS. It was certainly "front and center" in the coordinated efforts of the big guns at ToT during my short visit there. I think my personal favorite was Heretic / Burke arriving way too late but still wanting to deliver some kicks to Chico while the big guns could still admire his enthusiasm, even though Chico had "left the building".
:lol:

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu May 11, 2017 3:47 am
Profile
User avatar

Joined: Fri May 06, 2011 5:11 pm
Posts: 1400
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
Quote:
UncleZook wrote:
Alas, great writers from the now to way back into antiquity, have covered the problematic psychological half-spectrum with far more depth and detail than any watered-down attempts at understanding aberrant human psychology by either TMS or SOS.

Hey Zook! Instead of trying to discredit me as usual (sociopaths love to do this, I know...),

Again, the act of scarlet-lettering someone with a different and more convincing argument than your own, itself becomes a scarlet letter. In the past, I have demonstrated that your obsession with sociopathy (and lack of objectivity in assessing targets of your discontent) makes you see the world through a warped lens.

A lens that returns HItler ... the megalomaniac; narcissist; pathological liar; psychological niece-abuser; powermonger with an expansionist design on Russia (via Lebensraum); simplistic base-denominator tribalist driven binary thinker who apparently attempts to solve the bankster problem in Deutschland by exporting all so-called Jews - and not just into boxcars and concentration camps but ostensibly out of the country via his cosignature on the imperialist Ha'avara agreement (which doesn't ask the people of Palestine for any input as to whether they would accept boxcar/ encampment refugees, but barges these refugees into Palestine unilaterally under the false flag town crier bellow of "A land without a people for a people without a land!" ... that returns Hitler as a nonsociopath, perhaps even an empath.

And the same lens returns yours truly ... a dedicated no-nonsense truthseeker who prefers reading documents to tea leaves (Chico's preference), and establishes patterns and high probability clouds ... that returns Zook, the avuncular guy, as a sociopath.

Well, I submit that the lens is not the only thing warped here, but the viewer behind the lens is suffering from curvature himself.

Quote:
why don't you make yourself useful and actually show us all how these "great writers from the now to way back into antiquity" have addressed, analyzed, and clarified sociopathy in a better way ("with far more depth and detail") than I have done! I would be delighted to have this kind of information presented in the forum in a clear and precise manner.

Think you can do it?


Well, apart from the ridiculousness of the demand ... after all, writers have been observing human nature long before the pop. discipline of psychology showed up as a Johnny-come-lately and has made unsubstantiated claims on the understanding of the human mind. Statistical methods and group psychology notwithstanding.

That said, do you know what the terms protagonist and antagonist really mean? Do you know that virtually every great story has a protagonist and an antagonist? Heroes and villains?

What exactly is an antagonist? Now, one doesn't have to be a bad seed to be an antagonist, still, what percentage of antagonists in all the great stories ever told, have some identification with the type of behaviour that is being categorized as sociopathic behaviour in today's lexicon?

Here is an example of an antagonist: Brutus. But is he really? Depends on what kind of person Caesar was, and what reason Brutus had for killing Caesar. Caesar was a tyrant. Brutus killed Caesar for the good of Rome. The other conspirators killed for the improvement of their personal rank.

Do we have to wait until the 20th century to call Caesar a sociopath, Brutus an empath, and the other coconspirators, sociopaths? Of course we do. Because the coinage wasn't known in either England of Shakespeare's day or Rome of antiquity. That said, do we really need modern wordsmiths and (Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion) collaborators to tell us that Caesar was a bad seed, that Brutus was a good seed, that the coconspirators were bad seeds? No.

Anyone who reads Shakespeare immediately gets a feel for the protagonist and the antagonist, the empath and the sociopath, the good seed and the bad seed, upon finishing the play. Marcus Antonius, in as fine a tribute to any man, declares at the end:

beginExcerpt
ANTONY This was the noblest Roman of them all:
All the conspirators save only he,
Did that they did in envy of great Caesar;
He only, in a general honest thought
And common good to all, made one of them.
His life was gentle, and the elements
So mix'd in him that Nature might stand up
And say to all the world 'This was a man!' 75

OCTAVIUS According to his virtue let us use him,
With all respect and rites of burial.
Within my tent his bones to-night shall lie,
Most like a soldier, order'd honourably.
So call the field to rest; and let's away,
To part the glories of this happy day.
Exeunt
end

http://www.shakespeare-online.com/plays/julius_5_5.html

There's a million great books out there, give or take a dozen. You and I probably have read the same book as a fraction of the repository. You bring any book in that fraction here for discussion, and I will establish the psychology of the antagonist in that story. And my assessment will be pretty accurate ... and independent of any scholarship or feigned scholarship barnacled on the Protocols of Learned Elders of Zion solipsist agenda to define, parametrize, and control the discourse on what is good and what is bad ... what is empathic and what is sociopathic ... in the soft science of psychology (which had been established specifically for this purpose).

Quote:
I'm serious. I would love to see you back up your above claim. The better sociopathy is understood, the better the chances of humanity surviving.


It'll only accomplish that goal if you stop labelling me a sociopath - and I stop labelling you a gatekeeper - as much as each is convinced of the "factness" of the other's scarlet letter.

Pax

ps: Claude Frollo in Victor Hugo's Hunchback of Notre Dame is another interesting study of the bad seed. To reduce him into simple inaccurate labels as "sociopath" is a disservice. It robs us of understanding who Frollo really is and whether he was born bad or had become bad. Each individual is a symptom of their birth and of their immediate environment. And a proper understanding of that individual does not then come from labels but from a study of that individuals birth and environment.

_________________
Flight that sends into the clouds brings wings to rest upon the boughs. Then further down to the liquid lawn, to serve as sentries for the gliding swan. Curve, a perfect turning of the line between here and Heaven, with extensions into infinitum.


Thu May 11, 2017 4:42 am
Profile
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2011 6:06 pm
Posts: 11843
Reply with quote
Post Re: 'Their Mind' mindfcuk = ploy to disengage critical think
UncleZook wrote:
That said, do you know what the terms protagonist and antagonist really mean? Do you know that virtually every great story has a protagonist and an antagonist? Heroes and villains?

:face: :face: :face:

Never mind, Zook. I'm sorry I asked. I can't believe you would stoop to such simplification, suggesting the study of sociopathy reached its zenith in the antagonists of historical fiction and non-fiction.

In this particular thread, I'd like to concentrate on my experience and lessons learned at the ToT forum. Would you be so kind as to allow that? Feel free to start a new thread to state your case concerning how antagonists have already taught us everything we need to know about sociopaths.

UncleZook wrote:
It'll only accomplish that goal if you stop labelling me a sociopath - and I stop labelling you a gatekeeper - as much as each is convinced of the "factness" of the other's scarlet letter.

No truth-seeker would ever make such an agreement, or even suggest it.

May I suggest that you continue your "full frontal attack" on TMS in the thread you started? That would be something new and different from you, at least in this forum.

_________________
It's not that we can't handle the truth. It's that they can't handle us if we know the truth.


Thu May 11, 2017 6:13 am
Profile
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Reply to topic   [ 73 posts ]  Go to page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 ... 8  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by STSoftware.