Lady Gaga: Illuminati Puppet
"The symbolism surrounding Lady Gaga is so blatant that one might wonder if it’s all a sick joke. Illuminati symbolism is becoming so clear that analyses like this one becomes a simple exercise of pointing out the obvious. Her whole persona (whether its an act or not) is a tribute to mind control, where being vacuous, incoherent and absent minded becomes a fashionable thing."
read more here...
Does Gaga approve of this story?
read more here...
Does Gaga approve of this story?
On The Subject Of: Abstraction
Pablo Picasso was once present at a dinner where one guest loudly denounced modern art. Picasso ate quietly, saying nothing. Later, the same guest showed a wallet photo of his wife, and Picasso asked to look at it more closely. When it was handed over, Pablo stared at it intently and then asked innocently, “My God... is she really that small?”
Dear Roger,
It sure as shit ain't getting better. I had an incident tonight. I was sitting on the miserable rattle coaster excuse for this city's Public Transit, and without the shielding of a book or some form of music device I was forced to look the monkey in the eye, face to face with the Brothers and Sisters that were forced on me because of the spot on the face of Planet Mudball I was unfortunate enough to have been born onto. It was as if the work of Hieronymus Bosch sprang into life around me, but wearing blinking sneakers and sparkling vampire t-shirts. I'm just a man, Roger, I have my limits, dammit. Picture the Incredible Hulk doing the tango; picture Godzilla going for sushi; picture, hell picture Frankenstein dusting. It was not pretty. There's something about the smell of fresh brain that reminds me of my first bedroom. It was purple. What sane parent paints a kid's bedroom purple? I didn't stand a fucking chance, Roger.
Some questions:
Is it possible that the typhoon in the Philippines is the direct result of the whale-tail of Miley Cyrus? Does the ghost of Anna Nicole Smith fart? What did Pope Ratzinger say to Megan Fox and David Hasselhof when they all met in the Los Angeles headquarters of the Kabbalah Center™? I don't know either, but I suspect we will all find out, sooner rather than later.
Roger, why is it that anyone can pop out a kid, yet to receive a free coke at McDonalds I have to fill out a quiz? How can I be expected to hear the word 'crantini' and not snap and strangle someone? Can you answer me that? The green olives of the world weep, my friend.
My great grandfather watched for German planes on a rooftop during WWII. When someone called out that the war was over, he fell from the building, impaling himself on a spiked fence far below. A co-worker asked him, "William, does it hurt?" My grandfather replied: "Only when I laugh." Me too, Roger; only when I laugh.
Hoopla
PS: I need you to wire me some bail money.
Some questions:
Is it possible that the typhoon in the Philippines is the direct result of the whale-tail of Miley Cyrus? Does the ghost of Anna Nicole Smith fart? What did Pope Ratzinger say to Megan Fox and David Hasselhof when they all met in the Los Angeles headquarters of the Kabbalah Center™? I don't know either, but I suspect we will all find out, sooner rather than later.
Roger, why is it that anyone can pop out a kid, yet to receive a free coke at McDonalds I have to fill out a quiz? How can I be expected to hear the word 'crantini' and not snap and strangle someone? Can you answer me that? The green olives of the world weep, my friend.
My great grandfather watched for German planes on a rooftop during WWII. When someone called out that the war was over, he fell from the building, impaling himself on a spiked fence far below. A co-worker asked him, "William, does it hurt?" My grandfather replied: "Only when I laugh." Me too, Roger; only when I laugh.
Hoopla
PS: I need you to wire me some bail money.
Are You A PseudoSkeptic?
Marcello Truzzi, in a 1987 issue of “the Zetetic Scholar”, offerred this list of the attributes of the pseudoskeptics:
-The tendency to deny, rather than doubt.
-Double standards in the application of criticism.
-The making of judgements without full inquiry.
-Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate.
-Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks.
-Presenting insufficient evidence or proof.
-Pejorative labelling of proponents as ‘promoters’, ‘pseudoscientists’ or practitioners of ‘pathological science.’
-Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof.
-Making unsubstantiated counter-claims.
-Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence.
-Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it.
-Tendency to dismiss all evidence.
THERE IS A FAULT IN REALITY
many thanks and salutations to the ever popular and fully illustrious Madame Dharma Jam
Discordianism As Perfect Nihilism
written by: Cain
It’s funny, but the more I read about Nihilism, the more I think Discordianism is one possible antidote to it. I know this seems to contradict the title, so perhaps I should explain my terms a little, before I get ahead of myself.
Nihilism is a word that is thrown around a lot. As such, it is often misused, and open to abuse. Its very nature often makes it derogatory, though perhaps not unjustly, which also helps obscure the meaning. However, it does refer to a very real and precise phenomenon. Although the word itself dates back to Jacobi, in his attacks on Kant’s “critical philosophy”, the meaning by which it more usually understood goes back to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
The former referred to nihilism as a process of levelling, whereby individual uniqueness ceases to exist and being able to affirm one’s existence becomes impossible. However, it was more fully developed by Nietzsche and, more recently, Deleuze. In its modern meaning, nihilism is the disavowal of not only meaning in the world, a grand unifying ideal or scheme or plan, but all possible meaning for all time. Some of the theorized psychological stances that may lead one to nihilism are an inability to accept pain, conflict and antagonism. Because these are parts of our world, no matter how regrettable that may be, nihilism therefore becomes the quest for another, illusory world, where these imperfections do not exist, a transcendent and perfect realm.
Nihilism is tied to religions, but not purely a part of them. Though Nietzsche correctly diagnosed its presence at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, ceasing to believe in these religions alone cannot end it. Instead, as faith in these religions becomes less pronounced, we have two sorts of nihilism, which Nietzsche called “strong” and “weak” nihilism, in his typical manner. The weak version is pretty much as I explained above: the individual becomes passive and content with this world, giving up on passions and values and becoming almost without a will or desire at all. In “strong” or radical nihilism, the situation is reversed. Here the person cleaves so tightly to their passions and values, that they come to hate the world which cannot live up to them, and so, eventually, seeks to destroy the world they inhabit.
Clever readers, which you all are, will no doubt see a certain symmetry here. Like, say, that between contemporary Western life and radical fundamentalism? I’m sure I’m not the only one. The imperative of our current civilization is to moderate everything. Moderate political positions. Moderate exercise. Moderate religious views to go with our moderate meals. Everything has to be sanitized, made safe and comfortable and fluffy. Showing any sort of passion or conviction, especially of a radical kind, is frowned upon and considered frightening (both due to the fear of failure and the fear of success of any radical program or measure). We even seek to deny the discomfort from the effects of eating or preparing certain food, like with genetically modified onions that don’t make us cry, or diet coke. You can have anything you want...so long as it’s not radical or extreme, so long as its effects are constrained.
And on the other end of the spectrum, we have the religious bigots. The Islamic kamikaze bombers that will stroll into a crowd without hesitation, the Christian terrorists plotting to acquire WMD, the Jewish extremists willing to blow up a girl’s school, not to mention the likes of Aum Shinrikyo. The fallen, apostate and sinful world around them sickens them so much...especially since they have a direct line to God and what he Really Believes. Through violent yet ultimately impotent acts, they hope to divorce themselves from a society they despise. This will for nothingness can and often is directed inwards as well as outwards. The suicide bomber or mall shooter who commits “death by cop” is as much a nihilist as any other example here. The one thing the radical nihilist most fervently disavows is the kind of life and society that passive nihilism produces.
Therefore we have two distinct types which, while sharing a common origin, cannot combine or synthesise in any way. Equal and opposed, they can never meet, never resolve themselves. Yet both define our modern world. Is there any way to break out of this trap, to somehow perhaps go beyond nihilism into new, greener pastures?
I believe so. Furthermore, I believe the answer lies in nihilism itself, in some way.
The problem is this: nihilism itself needs to be negated, which is no small task. Or, to put it another way, anti-nihilism must be nihilism of a higher magnitude, to the degree that it can undermine its own premises. However, anti-nihilism, or, if you prefer, this perfect nihilism must also contain one extra component: it must not only destroy old values but also force a reassessment of how we come to determine our values in the first place. Anti-nihilism also must bring the focus back from imaginary metaphysical realms and transcendent planes of existence to this world, to find meaning in the reality in which we inhabit.
I think Discordianism can do this.
Firstly, most Discordians I know are not transcendent in their views. They don’t see order and disorder as absolutes, abiding in another Universe through which pale reflections are painted onto this reality. No, instead, most Discordians that I know believe that the order/disorder/chaos synthesis is instead a description of the world, and how it actually is, how it acts and reacts and how we perceive it. This immediately moves Discordianism from the theological realm of transcendent theories to the philosophical realm of immanent ones. Immanence holds, roughly, that there is no “beyond”, no “supplementary dimension” or other realm which determines our reality. There only is reality and nothing more.
Anti-nihilism therefore affirms the world, by taking a hammer to these phantoms and illusions that plague us with seductive, yet ultimately empty promises of eternal and external values.
But more yet needs to be done. The act of creation requires the destruction mentioned above, to clear the field of these nihilistic idols. Discordianism not only approves of, but greatly recommends the act of creation, and indeed, some have suggested the two are the same thing. And because Discordianism works from the frame of order/disorder and destruction/creation (=chaos), it is, in a very real sense, “beyond good and evil”. This doesn’t mean, as some think, beyond “good” and “bad” as concepts or descriptions, but denies a moral ordering of the world. The introduction of the idea of evil in particular has definite theological (and thus transcendent) overtones. While order is often seen as bad by Discordians, it is more often than not on a subjective, by which I mean individual case. Because Discordians mostly accept order is a natural part of the world, it is necessary in some sense. Where, when and for whom however, are different questions and often based on the context. Immanence, once again, is evident here, denying transcendence a foothold.
Chaos also denies teleology. Eris does not order her apostles to set themselves free, she tells them they are free. What they choose to do with this information is up to them. Teleology is one way to secularize transcendent values, by posting a utopia in the future. Against this, chaos suggests that there can be no eternal categories, absolute truths or timeless facts, and change cannot be reduced to one-directional evolution to progress.
And, perhaps most importantly, Discordianism meshes almost perfectly with the theory of Agonism. Against most political theory, Agonism suggests conflict is a permanent feature of human society, and so the question is not how to eliminate conflict – as with theories as diverse as liberalism to fascism, who aim at consensus – but instead how to channel this potential for conflict so that it can be used in a positive manner. Agonism is, despite the similarity in spelling and pronunciation, not the same as antagonism. Instead of merely allowing hostility and conflict to flourish, which could, if unchecked, result in the destruction of the social system entirely, Agonism allows for conflict within bounds and with respect for one’s opponents as adversaries. Recognition that conflict is, in a sense or in some part irrational, and cannot ever be entirely eliminated, is very similar to the Discordian synthesis of order and disorder into chaos – a dialectic without final resolution or end stage, because either the victory of order or disorder over the other would be disastrous.
An Agonist society would be very similar to that relationship between order and disorder. Such a society would lack a unity of principle, which could then be exploited by demagogues and would be tyrants. It would also allow for the fullest expression of real difference and dialogue, a return of those values and passions that passive nihilism tries to deny. Agonism reintroduces contest and dispute into a society deadened by consensus, the need for “bi-partisanship”, the “best interests of everyone” and the pathological desire to make everything safe and un-radical.
Nihilism is, in my opinion, the opiate of the 21st century. It is so easy to fall into apathy, to wish to cocoon yourself in a little bubble of comfort and nice things. Equally, it is easy to grow to despise everything around you, for not living up to childish and unrealistic ideas about the world, to the point that you cannot bear the gap between expectation and fact, and so let that frustration out in destructive and terrible ways.
I think a third way exists. Through the sort of “creative destruction” that Discordianism promotes, old idols can be brought low and new idols can be created. Until, they too, need destroying. And so on and so forth.
It’s funny, but the more I read about Nihilism, the more I think Discordianism is one possible antidote to it. I know this seems to contradict the title, so perhaps I should explain my terms a little, before I get ahead of myself.
Nihilism is a word that is thrown around a lot. As such, it is often misused, and open to abuse. Its very nature often makes it derogatory, though perhaps not unjustly, which also helps obscure the meaning. However, it does refer to a very real and precise phenomenon. Although the word itself dates back to Jacobi, in his attacks on Kant’s “critical philosophy”, the meaning by which it more usually understood goes back to Kierkegaard and Nietzsche.
The former referred to nihilism as a process of levelling, whereby individual uniqueness ceases to exist and being able to affirm one’s existence becomes impossible. However, it was more fully developed by Nietzsche and, more recently, Deleuze. In its modern meaning, nihilism is the disavowal of not only meaning in the world, a grand unifying ideal or scheme or plan, but all possible meaning for all time. Some of the theorized psychological stances that may lead one to nihilism are an inability to accept pain, conflict and antagonism. Because these are parts of our world, no matter how regrettable that may be, nihilism therefore becomes the quest for another, illusory world, where these imperfections do not exist, a transcendent and perfect realm.
Nihilism is tied to religions, but not purely a part of them. Though Nietzsche correctly diagnosed its presence at the heart of Judeo-Christian-Islamic culture, ceasing to believe in these religions alone cannot end it. Instead, as faith in these religions becomes less pronounced, we have two sorts of nihilism, which Nietzsche called “strong” and “weak” nihilism, in his typical manner. The weak version is pretty much as I explained above: the individual becomes passive and content with this world, giving up on passions and values and becoming almost without a will or desire at all. In “strong” or radical nihilism, the situation is reversed. Here the person cleaves so tightly to their passions and values, that they come to hate the world which cannot live up to them, and so, eventually, seeks to destroy the world they inhabit.
Clever readers, which you all are, will no doubt see a certain symmetry here. Like, say, that between contemporary Western life and radical fundamentalism? I’m sure I’m not the only one. The imperative of our current civilization is to moderate everything. Moderate political positions. Moderate exercise. Moderate religious views to go with our moderate meals. Everything has to be sanitized, made safe and comfortable and fluffy. Showing any sort of passion or conviction, especially of a radical kind, is frowned upon and considered frightening (both due to the fear of failure and the fear of success of any radical program or measure). We even seek to deny the discomfort from the effects of eating or preparing certain food, like with genetically modified onions that don’t make us cry, or diet coke. You can have anything you want...so long as it’s not radical or extreme, so long as its effects are constrained.
And on the other end of the spectrum, we have the religious bigots. The Islamic kamikaze bombers that will stroll into a crowd without hesitation, the Christian terrorists plotting to acquire WMD, the Jewish extremists willing to blow up a girl’s school, not to mention the likes of Aum Shinrikyo. The fallen, apostate and sinful world around them sickens them so much...especially since they have a direct line to God and what he Really Believes. Through violent yet ultimately impotent acts, they hope to divorce themselves from a society they despise. This will for nothingness can and often is directed inwards as well as outwards. The suicide bomber or mall shooter who commits “death by cop” is as much a nihilist as any other example here. The one thing the radical nihilist most fervently disavows is the kind of life and society that passive nihilism produces.
Therefore we have two distinct types which, while sharing a common origin, cannot combine or synthesise in any way. Equal and opposed, they can never meet, never resolve themselves. Yet both define our modern world. Is there any way to break out of this trap, to somehow perhaps go beyond nihilism into new, greener pastures?
I believe so. Furthermore, I believe the answer lies in nihilism itself, in some way.
The problem is this: nihilism itself needs to be negated, which is no small task. Or, to put it another way, anti-nihilism must be nihilism of a higher magnitude, to the degree that it can undermine its own premises. However, anti-nihilism, or, if you prefer, this perfect nihilism must also contain one extra component: it must not only destroy old values but also force a reassessment of how we come to determine our values in the first place. Anti-nihilism also must bring the focus back from imaginary metaphysical realms and transcendent planes of existence to this world, to find meaning in the reality in which we inhabit.
I think Discordianism can do this.
Firstly, most Discordians I know are not transcendent in their views. They don’t see order and disorder as absolutes, abiding in another Universe through which pale reflections are painted onto this reality. No, instead, most Discordians that I know believe that the order/disorder/chaos synthesis is instead a description of the world, and how it actually is, how it acts and reacts and how we perceive it. This immediately moves Discordianism from the theological realm of transcendent theories to the philosophical realm of immanent ones. Immanence holds, roughly, that there is no “beyond”, no “supplementary dimension” or other realm which determines our reality. There only is reality and nothing more.
Anti-nihilism therefore affirms the world, by taking a hammer to these phantoms and illusions that plague us with seductive, yet ultimately empty promises of eternal and external values.
But more yet needs to be done. The act of creation requires the destruction mentioned above, to clear the field of these nihilistic idols. Discordianism not only approves of, but greatly recommends the act of creation, and indeed, some have suggested the two are the same thing. And because Discordianism works from the frame of order/disorder and destruction/creation (=chaos), it is, in a very real sense, “beyond good and evil”. This doesn’t mean, as some think, beyond “good” and “bad” as concepts or descriptions, but denies a moral ordering of the world. The introduction of the idea of evil in particular has definite theological (and thus transcendent) overtones. While order is often seen as bad by Discordians, it is more often than not on a subjective, by which I mean individual case. Because Discordians mostly accept order is a natural part of the world, it is necessary in some sense. Where, when and for whom however, are different questions and often based on the context. Immanence, once again, is evident here, denying transcendence a foothold.
Chaos also denies teleology. Eris does not order her apostles to set themselves free, she tells them they are free. What they choose to do with this information is up to them. Teleology is one way to secularize transcendent values, by posting a utopia in the future. Against this, chaos suggests that there can be no eternal categories, absolute truths or timeless facts, and change cannot be reduced to one-directional evolution to progress.
And, perhaps most importantly, Discordianism meshes almost perfectly with the theory of Agonism. Against most political theory, Agonism suggests conflict is a permanent feature of human society, and so the question is not how to eliminate conflict – as with theories as diverse as liberalism to fascism, who aim at consensus – but instead how to channel this potential for conflict so that it can be used in a positive manner. Agonism is, despite the similarity in spelling and pronunciation, not the same as antagonism. Instead of merely allowing hostility and conflict to flourish, which could, if unchecked, result in the destruction of the social system entirely, Agonism allows for conflict within bounds and with respect for one’s opponents as adversaries. Recognition that conflict is, in a sense or in some part irrational, and cannot ever be entirely eliminated, is very similar to the Discordian synthesis of order and disorder into chaos – a dialectic without final resolution or end stage, because either the victory of order or disorder over the other would be disastrous.
An Agonist society would be very similar to that relationship between order and disorder. Such a society would lack a unity of principle, which could then be exploited by demagogues and would be tyrants. It would also allow for the fullest expression of real difference and dialogue, a return of those values and passions that passive nihilism tries to deny. Agonism reintroduces contest and dispute into a society deadened by consensus, the need for “bi-partisanship”, the “best interests of everyone” and the pathological desire to make everything safe and un-radical.
Nihilism is, in my opinion, the opiate of the 21st century. It is so easy to fall into apathy, to wish to cocoon yourself in a little bubble of comfort and nice things. Equally, it is easy to grow to despise everything around you, for not living up to childish and unrealistic ideas about the world, to the point that you cannot bear the gap between expectation and fact, and so let that frustration out in destructive and terrible ways.
I think a third way exists. Through the sort of “creative destruction” that Discordianism promotes, old idols can be brought low and new idols can be created. Until, they too, need destroying. And so on and so forth.
Satire In Politics!
A man in California is putting forward a satirical measure on the ballot next year, which would effectively ban divorce, in response to California's refusal to allow gays to marry.
This Post Is About EVERYTHING:
1: We look for patterns in the world outside our heads.
2: When we find patterns, we call it order; when we don't we call it disorder.
3: The ability to find patterns comes from within ourselves.
4: So order and disorder only exist dependent on how much we want it to be there.
5: To realize that Order and Disorder are subjective, and that all is Chaos, is to find Eris.
2: When we find patterns, we call it order; when we don't we call it disorder.
3: The ability to find patterns comes from within ourselves.
4: So order and disorder only exist dependent on how much we want it to be there.
5: To realize that Order and Disorder are subjective, and that all is Chaos, is to find Eris.
Taoist Chaos Magic
by: Cramulus
Back in college, I met this guy who "used to be" into chaos magic. He was a pretty heavy dude. --in the sense that he was always talking about fate and death and the mysteries of the universe and what have you. Walked around with a staff which he had "sigilized the fuck out of". I asked him if he still did ritual things, and he said no, he was into "Eastern stuff" now.
Like what? I asked
like Taoist chaos magic
What's that mean?
It's effortless, he said sagely. You don't do anything.
somewhere, a bong sounded
Like what? I asked
like Taoist chaos magic
What's that mean?
It's effortless, he said sagely. You don't do anything.
somewhere, a bong sounded
The Supposedly Green Baby Making Machine
she's so green she doesn't watch movies because of film being made from organic beings. She cherishes her liberal guilt like a close relative whose recently lost its legs in a landmine accident. If youre going to eat meat, she says, at least buy free range haven't you seen the PETA ads? Don't you listen to PETA? she only drinks rain water, and seems never to bathe. she speaks often and lovingly about green condos, as if they might be a viable answer to the urban sprawl problem. she sneers at ketchup, but then again, so do I... but wait, there's more... she refuses to use toilet paper, MUCH TOO WASTEFUL! she instead has rags which she washes over and over again. stop and think about that before moving on. she has rags of shit she washes over and over again. shit. and, don't get her started on paper towels, she will foam at the mouth, like she does when she brushes her teeth with baking soda. yes, she brushes her teeth with baking soda. she refuses to listen to music by artists who don't share her worldview, and barely tolerates those around her who don't. she speaks often about moving to the country. moving to the country. moving to the country. moving to the country. she speaks often often often about moving to the country. anywhere to escape the stink of the city. the stink of millions of people crammed together daily. does she consider what we would smell like if we all used rags to wipe the shit from our asses? i wonder.
where does her greenness stop? what is her limit? BIRTH CONTROL, apparently. the woman has four children already, and a fifth one up the stick. five children, my friends. five more mouths to cry for McDonald Happy Meals. five more mouths to grow up and consume. five more bodies to stink up this city. five more bodies to add to the 6,602,224,175 bodies already weighing down and stinking up this mudball we call Earth.
GREEN? don't make me laugh, bitch, i'm goofy enough as it is.
where does her greenness stop? what is her limit? BIRTH CONTROL, apparently. the woman has four children already, and a fifth one up the stick. five children, my friends. five more mouths to cry for McDonald Happy Meals. five more mouths to grow up and consume. five more bodies to stink up this city. five more bodies to add to the 6,602,224,175 bodies already weighing down and stinking up this mudball we call Earth.
GREEN? don't make me laugh, bitch, i'm goofy enough as it is.
Thwarting The System
by: fictionpuss
Now you have to think and stuff, and realise that there may be times when you've wasted years on failed approaches.
It's no longer a free lunch, or free love.. yet I think it's progress.
Fuck it, every revolutionary movement uses the tools in its environment, to do otherwise would be foolish. I mean, I see the angst, but I don't understand where it's coming from.
Cults believe they have all the answers, Disordianism is not a cult. Why then weep at the marvels of your electric toothbrush?
From Dillinger To Bugs In 5 Easy Steps
1) On July 22, 1934 John Dillinger and friend visit the Biograph Theater in Chicago to see the film “Manhattan Melodrama” starring Clark Gable and Mirna Loy.
2) On leaving the theatre, Dillinger is promptly filled with holes by Federal Agents.
3) Due to the publicity showered on “Manhattan Melodrama” following Dillinger’s death Clark Gable and Mirna Loy are thrust into super stardom.
4) Cashing in on his new success, Clark Gable quickly stars in “It Happened One Night” where his fast-talking character munches on carrots. In addition, a character in this same movie is named “Bugs Dooley”
5) Spoofing on Clark Gable’s “It Happened One Night” character, a fast-talking, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, Bugs Bunny, is created.
DILLINGER AND BUGS ARE BOTH DISCORDIAN SAINTS
do you STILL believe in coincidence?
2) On leaving the theatre, Dillinger is promptly filled with holes by Federal Agents.
3) Due to the publicity showered on “Manhattan Melodrama” following Dillinger’s death Clark Gable and Mirna Loy are thrust into super stardom.
4) Cashing in on his new success, Clark Gable quickly stars in “It Happened One Night” where his fast-talking character munches on carrots. In addition, a character in this same movie is named “Bugs Dooley”
5) Spoofing on Clark Gable’s “It Happened One Night” character, a fast-talking, carrot-munching cartoon rabbit, Bugs Bunny, is created.
DILLINGER AND BUGS ARE BOTH DISCORDIAN SAINTS
do you STILL believe in coincidence?
From the Dawn of Civilization,
we have existed in order to undermine it. Our only enemy is the status quo. Our only friend is chaos. We have no government ties and unlimited resources. If something goes wrong, we are the cause. Every corner of the earth is under our surveillance. If you do it, we see it. Always. We believe the powerful should be made less powerful. We have heard the voice of society, begging us to destabilize it.
WHERE ARE ALL THE BANANAS?
The cabbage view is incredible because it suggests that we can have experience of objects out in the world directly, beyond the sensory surface, as if bypassing the chain of sensory processing. For example if light from your screen is transduced by your retina into a neural signal which is transmitted from your eye to your brain, then the very first aspect of the computer screen that you can possibly experience is the information at the retinal surface, or the perceptual representation that it stimulates in your brain. The physical monitor itself lies beyond the sensory surface and therefore must be beyond your direct experience. But the perceptual experience of the page stubbornly appears out in the world itself instead of in your brain, in apparent violation of everything we know about the causal chain of vision. The difficulty with the concept of direct perception is most clearly seen when considering how an artificial vision system could be endowed with such external perception. Although a sensor may record an external quantity in an internal register or variable in a computer, from the internal perspective of the software running on that computer, only the internal value of that variable can be "seen", or can possibly influence the operation of that software. In exactly analogous manner the pattern of electrochemical activity that corresponds to our conscious experience can take a form that reflects the properties of external objects, but our consciousness is necessarily confined to the experience of those internal effigies of external objects, rather than of external objects themselves. Unless the principle of direct perception can be demonstrated in a simple artificial sensory system, this explanation remains as mysterious as the property of consciousness it is supposed to explain.
The indirect realist view is also incredible, for it suggests that the solid stable structure of the world that we perceive to surround us is merely a pattern of energy in the physical brain. In other words, the world that appears to be external to our head is actually inside our head. This could only mean that the head we have come to know as our own is not our true physical head, but is merely a miniature perceptual copy of our head inside a perceptual copy of the world, all of which is completely contained within our true physical skull. Stated from the internal phenomenal perspective, out beyond the farthest things you can perceive in all directions, i.e. above the dome of the sky and below the earth under your feet, or beyond the walls, floor, and ceiling of the room you perceive around you, beyond those perceived surfaces is the inner surface of your true physical skull encompassing all that you perceive, and beyond that skull is an unimaginably immense external world, of which the world you see around you is merely a miniature virtual reality replica. The external world and its phenomenal replica cannot be spatially superimposed, for one is inside your physical head, and the other is outside. Therefore the vivid spatial structure of this page that you perceive here in your hands is itself a pattern of activation within your physical brain, and the real paper of which it is a copy is out beyond your direct experience. Although this statement can only be true in a topological, rather than a strict topographical sense, this insight emphasizes the indisputable fact that no aspect of the external world can possibly appear in consciousness except by being represented explicitly in the brain. The existential vertigo occasioned by this concept of perception is so disorienting that only a handful of researchers have seriously entertained this notion or pursued its implications to its logical conclusion.
The key to this problem of fitting a spacious world into our brains is to notice that our experience is a 'view' of a spacious world. Things are separated by angles relative to an observation point. The separation of things by angles at a point means that we do not have a sense of depth that operates in the same way as our sense of things being separated in horizontal and vertical directions. Our sense of depth is based upon cues rather than an actual experience of the space between things. As an example, the stars in a planetarium appear incredibly distant even though they are on the ceiling of a room and would appear just as distant if viewed through virtual reality goggles. Visual depth in particular is a set of inferences, not an actual experience of the space between things in a radial direction outward from the observation point. This means that the things that are the spacious world of experience could be as small as just a few cubic millimetres of brain tissue!
If there is anything to be learned from the long history of the epistemological debate, it is that the issue is by no means simple or trivial, and that whatever is ultimately determined to be the truth of epistemology, we can be sure that it will do considerable violence to our common-sense view of things. This however is nothing new in science, for many of the greatest discoveries of science seemed initially to be so incredible that it took decades or even centuries before they were generally accepted. But accepted they were, eventually, and the reason why they were accepted was not because they had become any less incredible. In science, irrefutable evidence triumphs over incredibility, and this is exactly what gives science the power to discover unexpected or incredible truth.
We should remember that the following considerations are also part of informed commonsense.
- What we perceive is often dependent on our organs of perception and their condition. If we had compound eyes, as flies do, we would receive information about the visual world in a completely different form. If we had jaundice, things would look yellow. If we had other sense organs altogether, like infra-red detectors or echo-location devices, things might appear to us in ways which we can’t even imagine. (Let’s call this ‘perceptual variability’).
- Even our current perceptual apparatus is obviously not infallible. We are all familiar with perceptual illusions of various sorts. A major sub-classification of such illusions relates to whether the sensory organs are malfunctioning (as in jaundice) or whether they habitually misrepresent objects to us even in full working order (e.g. the Müller-Lyer illusion).
- Sometimes these perceptual illusions extend to cases where we think we perceive things which in fact aren’t there at all (rather than just misperceiving the properties of things which are there to be perceived). This is a more radical case of perceptual error than simple illusion. (Call it ‘hallucination’ or ‘perceptual delusion’).
The basic claim is that in cases of illusion or hallucination, the object that is immediately experienced or given has qualities that no public physical object in that situation has and so must be distinct from any such object. And in cases of perceptual relativity, since objects with different qualities are experienced from each of the different perspectives or under each of the relevant conditions, at most one of these various immediately experienced or given objects could be the physical object itself; it is then further argued that since there is no apparent experiential basis for regarding one out of any such set of related perceptual experiences as the one in which the relevant physical object is itself immediately experienced, the most reasonable conclusion is that the immediately experienced or given object is always distinct from the physical object. (Or, significantly more weakly, that there is no way to identify which, if any, of the immediately experienced objects is the physical object itself, so that the evidential force of the experience is in this respect the same in all cases, and it is epistemologically as though physical objects were never given, whether or not that is in fact the case.)
The naïve realist theory of perception is not threatened by these facts as they stand, for they are accommodated by that theory by virtue its very vagueness (or ‘open-texture’). The theory just isn’t specific or detailed enough to be refuted by the (actually very rare) occurrence of these cases.
The cogency of this argument has been challenged in a number of different ways, of which the most important are the following. First, it has been questioned whether there is any reason to suppose that in cases of these kinds there must be some object present that actually has the experienced qualities, which would then seemingly have to be something like a sense-datum. Why couldn't it be that the perceiver is simply in a state of seeming to experience such an object without any object actually being present? (See the discussion below of the adverbial theory.) Second, it has been argued that in cases of illusion and perceptual relativity at least, there is after all an object present, namely the relevant physical object, which is simply misperceived, for the most part in readily explainable ways. Why, it is asked, is there any need to suppose that an additional object is also involved? Third, the last part of the perceptual relativity version of the argument has been challenged, both (i) by questioning whether it is really true that there is no experiential difference between veridical and non-veridical perception; and (ii) by arguing that even if sense-data are experienced in non-veridical cases and even if the difference between veridical and non-veridical cases is, as claimed, experientially indiscernible, there is still no reason to think that sense-data are the immediate objects of experience in veridical cases. Fourth, various puzzling questions have been raised about the nature of sense-data: Do they exist through time or are they momentary? Can they exist when not being perceived? Are they public or private? Can they be themselves misperceived? Do they exist in minds or are they extra-mental, even if not physical? On the basis of the intractability of these questions, it has been argued that the conclusion of the argument from illusion is clearly unacceptable or even ultimately unintelligible, even in the absence of a clear diagnosis of exactly where and how it goes wrong.
AMAZING RANDI'S MILLION DOLLAR CHALLENGE CONTINUES!
It was announced about a year ago that the Amazing Randi's JREF organization was going to be disscontinuining the challenge, as it was a strain of both time and effort, but fear not those who would choose to break the laws of physics - the contest is not ending!
read more...
A Conversation Between Sigismundo Celine And Sigismundo Celine
I am Sigismundo Celine, not the man in the moon.
But then he was the man in the moon. Earth was a distant light in the sky far, far away. Various famous Lunatics were gathered around explaining moon-logic to him. “You never get ‘outside’. What you call ‘outside’ is another part of ‘inside’. See?”
“Yes,” he said. “I have never experienced another human being. I have experienced my impressions of them. Even in sexual intercourse I did not, strictly speaking, experience the other: I experienced my experience of her.”
“Then the whole universe is inside my head?”
“But your head is inside the universe. How do you explain that?”
“Well, then, I must have two heads, so to speak. The universe is inside my actually experienced head, but that head and the universe itself must both be inside my head logically necessary conceptual head. Is that it?”
“Yes. My conceptual head contains the universe, or a model of the universe to be strictly precise, and inside the that model is the model of my conceptual head, which is of course also my experienced head.”
“Careful now. You’re building up to an infinite regress.”
“I can see that, but it must be because consciousness itself is an infinite regress. I think that explains coincidences.”
“Are you quite sure you know what you are saying?”
“Yes. A coincidence is an isomorphism between the contents of my conceptual head, outside the universe, and my experienced head, inside the universe.”
“And why would there be such an isomorphism?”
“Because, damn it, my two heads are really only one head. I’ve just separated them for logical analysis.”
“But how can your conceptual head, outside the universe, be your experienced head, inside the universe?”
“Because, because . . .”
“Yes?”
“Because concepts are experiences, too. My conceptual head is experienced, and becomes my experienced head, whenever I think about mathematics or pure logic. Yes, by God. When I see a spotted dog, that is inside my experienced head, as Hume demonstrated. But when I think about the actual dog that creates the image in my experienced head, I must be expanding my conceptual head to include the actual dog, not the image of the dog. So the dog, and the rest of the universe, are actually in my conceptual head, not in my experienced head, which only has their images.”
“But then my experienced head is both inside and outside my conceptual head – which means it is both inside and outside my universe.”
“You’re still in the infinite regress.”
“I can appreciate that. By the way, am I talking to you or talking to myself?”
“Is there a difference?”
But then he was the man in the moon. Earth was a distant light in the sky far, far away. Various famous Lunatics were gathered around explaining moon-logic to him. “You never get ‘outside’. What you call ‘outside’ is another part of ‘inside’. See?”
“Yes,” he said. “I have never experienced another human being. I have experienced my impressions of them. Even in sexual intercourse I did not, strictly speaking, experience the other: I experienced my experience of her.”
“Then the whole universe is inside my head?”
“But your head is inside the universe. How do you explain that?”
“Well, then, I must have two heads, so to speak. The universe is inside my actually experienced head, but that head and the universe itself must both be inside my head logically necessary conceptual head. Is that it?”
“Yes. My conceptual head contains the universe, or a model of the universe to be strictly precise, and inside the that model is the model of my conceptual head, which is of course also my experienced head.”
“Careful now. You’re building up to an infinite regress.”
“I can see that, but it must be because consciousness itself is an infinite regress. I think that explains coincidences.”
“Are you quite sure you know what you are saying?”
“Yes. A coincidence is an isomorphism between the contents of my conceptual head, outside the universe, and my experienced head, inside the universe.”
“And why would there be such an isomorphism?”
“Because, damn it, my two heads are really only one head. I’ve just separated them for logical analysis.”
“But how can your conceptual head, outside the universe, be your experienced head, inside the universe?”
“Because, because . . .”
“Yes?”
“Because concepts are experiences, too. My conceptual head is experienced, and becomes my experienced head, whenever I think about mathematics or pure logic. Yes, by God. When I see a spotted dog, that is inside my experienced head, as Hume demonstrated. But when I think about the actual dog that creates the image in my experienced head, I must be expanding my conceptual head to include the actual dog, not the image of the dog. So the dog, and the rest of the universe, are actually in my conceptual head, not in my experienced head, which only has their images.”
“But then my experienced head is both inside and outside my conceptual head – which means it is both inside and outside my universe.”
“You’re still in the infinite regress.”
“I can appreciate that. By the way, am I talking to you or talking to myself?”
“Is there a difference?”
LEFT SIDE/RIGHT SIDE
common grey matter has two components:
PENTAL: The Pental is very observant, very quick, and likes to compartmentalize everything it witnesses; the Pental is also extremely arrogant. The Pental isn’t usually aware of the Pomal, and when it is aware of its existence is very jealous and manipulative. The Pental believes itself to be the entire universe, and in a sense it is correct. The Pental IS the entire universe, at least for each of us. Everything I see is part of the Pental, everything I think about is part of the Pental, and my Pental tells me how to see and think about things. When I look at a “tree” I only “know” it is a “tree” because my Pental tells me. The Pental would have you believe that it is the only thing which exists.POMAL: On the other hand, the Pomal has none of those qualities, in fact, to even attempt to describe the Pomal is doing it a grave disservice . . . any description or definition I gave would only be my Pental’s idea of the Pomal anyway, and would therefor be useless. The closest I will come to pinning anything on the Pomal would be to compare it with the “Tao” . . . but even that is off. The Pomal is the Pomal, and thats really all there is to say about it. Don’t let the lack of a definition trick you
into believing the Pomal is lesser than the Pental however, that’s just your Pental whispering to you. The Pomal rules dreams, intuition, synchronicity, tarot, the I-Ching, and magick – perhaps even quantum physics. Anytime the Pomal pops itself into your “normal world” the Pental will immediately pounce on it, and dominate it, to show you that it is boss, in this way the Pental shows that its power is over everything, and at the same time saves itself from destruction (despite what it believes, the Pental is very fragile, and can be disrupted easily by extreme emotional jolts, heavy drugs, meditation and yoga). The Pomal’s influence on the world of the Pental is subtle, but profound.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)