THRIVE: What On Earth Will It Take? Now Available to View

Originally Posted by Humm

Their views express a rage at the condition of the world, which is understandable, but they make a further leap, their blatant outright feelings of powerlessness manifesting in their consciousness as the Illuminati or other shadowy world manipulator, and they 'see' their 'actions' wherever they look.

Speaking up about it, informing others proves they do not feel helpless, or are irrationally emotional when they do speak.
Well, that's what i have seen in the docos I've watched.

The ones who are not overwhelmed in fear, repeat to the viewers, "Do your own research, don't just blindly believe me, etc."

And, as a result of the empowered fearless people who first began presenting the alternative theory to the offical goverment ones, at last count, 50% of Americans now believe the offical story is a lie.

All good points AC.

This is a discussion I simultaneously don't want to have and at the same time know I have to answer. Any particular example to be discussed is a potential firestorm waiting to happen, wherein most people will interject their pet political views which just end up right where they started, coming from a pre-judged position as they do. It's no secret that political discussion can be the most polarizing - always for the other guy, of course, never for oneself.

And I am no different, but I do like to think I have some basis for an informed opinion because I have been there. In answer to your first post I think it is applicable to re-post a previous bit of one of mine:

Originally Posted by Humm

Yes some conspiracy exists. Yes corruption exists. Yes sometimes some people actually are 'out to get' other people. What I have watched grow for over 30 years is something quite aside from the world's dirty little realities.

When these issues come up in real life in many ways it is easier, because I can determine if a real discussion is even possible usually in a few seconds. I have had this discussion many times. I ask a few simple questions; Have you ever been in the military? Have you ever worked for the government? Have you ever been in charge of a large group of people? Have you ever run a business? These kinds of things.

I have been in the military. I have worked in government contracting. I have managed large departments as part of running a multimillion dollar business. I watch most of those docos and I am ABSOLUTELY APPALLED by the sheer ignorance, misrepresentation, and FANTASY. Inexplicably, people often buy it - because they haven't seen how people actually work in practice, IMO.

Again, I'm not saying there isn't a lot of shameful, wrongheaded, and downright counterproductive stuff going on. The difference is the supposed 'end-game'. All the conspiracy theories I am referring to have in common the notion that the point of it all is to CONTROL AND LIMIT the people of the earth. Now, it is true that there are a lot of 'nanny' laws, designed to protect people from themselves - but even that is not what I am talking about. I am talking about the thinking that people are such a threat that chemicals are being added to their water/air supply to keep them docile, or that wars are started purely for the purpose of decreasing the population, etc..

I disagree with this for two reasons. First of all - you are just not that important. You are not a threat to the people of power in the world, no matter what you might want to think. The thing is, for the majority of the people in the world, no chemicals or psychic attacks or control beams or anything is even remotely necessary to keep them dumb and ignorant. Secondly, all those crazy things in the world that only makes sense if there is a hyper-intelligence behind the scenes working to keep people down - - so sorry, not happening. The truth is, there is virtually nil that happens in the world that isn't the result of 1) greed, and 2) incompetence. That's it. That's all there is, and that's all there needs to be. The few bright lights of wonderful things gone right are just that - a wonder.

It is true the world is not your friend, but it is also true the world is not your enemy. The people actually in charge of the world are generally a pretty self-absorbed lot, and really don't care what you think or do except where it directly and immediately concerns their interests - like making more money. It's about the money people - not you. BTW, the more people, the more people both producing and consuming - and the more money to be made. Depopulation conspiracies debunked.

One day, if man actually survives his own adolescence, the law of the land will be to apply intelligence, instead of simply acting out of avarice or fear or taking the first bull-headed action that comes up - but I feel that is still a long way off, looking at the world and many of the opinions of the world today.

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

Speaking up about it, informing others proves they do not feel helpless, or are irrationally emotional when they do speak.
Well, that's what i have seen in the docos I've watched.

The ones who are not overwhelmed in fear, repeat to the viewers, "Do your own research, don't just blindly believe me, etc."

And, as a result of the empowered fearless people who first began presenting the alternative theory to the offical goverment ones, at last count, 50% of Americans now believe the offical story is a lie.

This demands a few words itself.

Speaking up is not the issue. What they are saying, that is the issue.

Like I tried to explain earlier, the facts are not the issue - it is what they see in the facts. Optimism is a bias - and so is cynicism. If you look at the empirical science one of those leads to a longer, healthier, happier, more fulfilling life, and the other doesn't - so why would anyone choose cynicism? If you ask, the cynics will tell you it is because they live a longer, better life that way.

And that's people's opinions for you.

Originally Posted by Humm

All good points AC.

This is a discussion I simultaneously don't want to have and at the same time know I have to answer.

Then please inform me of your final decision. No point continuing if you do not.

Any particular example to be discussed is a potential firestorm waiting to happen, wherein most people will interject their pet political views which just end up right where they started, coming from a pre-judged position as they do.

Firestorms only happen when someone introduces fire. They don't sit around waiting to manifest.
I for one am not emotional about this subject, and i wasn't aware it was about politics.
I thought it was about determining how to separate fact from belief.
Why people have biases and why they don't calmly and rationally explore to verify if something is true or not.

Yes, it's all in the context of politics, but I'm focused on the underlying issues.
Issues that are within many other aspects of life other than politics.

Perhaps firestorms occur in topics like politics, religion and sport because people are so attached to their particular beliefs of them that they get all hot and bothered if someone offers a different opinion.

Seriously, do people go to war because a person shares they like a particular flavour of ice cream to another?

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

...Yes, it's all in the context of politics, but I'm focused on the underlying issues.
Issues that are within many other aspects of life other than politics...

Couldn't agree more - and that is precisely where 'separating fact from belief' becomes an exercise in the underlying issue of understanding human perception.

We all have a stake in any possible answer, and this stake does shape our perspective. It is not a question of 'if', it is a question of 'how much'. To state anything different, for myself, only expresses the unconsciousness of my own bias. Everyone appeals to the myth of objectivity - the 'perspectiveless perspective' - when attempting to promote their own perspective over any other. It is a complete confusion between 'fact' and 'judgement'.

That's not to say there cannot be a high correspondence with actuality, but even that only occurs when that particular actuality has a high correspondence with our own perspective. This is the utility of non-attachment.

Perspective is the innate source of multiple conclusions from one set of facts, and the innate condition of human perception. You cannot change facts - but what one sees in the facts IS interpretation. We may have great faith in our powers of cognition, reasoning and logic - but that says everything about our confidence and nothing about our perception.

Facts are facts. When relating one fact against another fact, the unconscious and automatic response is to look for pattern and connection between the facts that fit our pre-conceived understanding of the over-all situation. This is especially evident when watching or reading something completely removed from our first-hand experience. Our imagination takes over - as if we were watching/reading fiction, but unconsciously - and then we proclaim either 'this makes sense' (we see the claimed connection) or 'this does not make sense' (we do not see the claimed connection). Where our mind can 'connect the dots' or not depends entirely on our experience, perspective, cognitive abilities, etc.

This is very different from actually empirically differentiating fact from belief. Even when stepping out to 'investigate' claims, too often it is undertaken with the very same mind-set and perspective of searching for 'evidence' that, once gathered and 'put in context', supports our pre-conceived perspective. Then, invoking 'objectivity' just becomes another self-proclaimed 'fact' we throw in to try to uphold our pre-judged conclusions.

So, do you want to get into this or not Humm?
If so, please cite your qualifications from those institutions you were in and list the docos you have seen.

You go first.

I did . I have read the thread at home and my first port of call are the requests i have posted.
Quick, 'cus I gotta go soon n I won't be back till fri or next mon.

I used to give my energy away to stuff like this but lately I learned to keep my energy contained and not bother with stuff I have no influence over.

Originally Posted by Alternate Carpark

I did . I have read the thread at home and my first port of call are the requests i have posted.
Quick, 'cus I gotta go soon n I won't be back till fri or next mon.

Sorry I missed you AC. The holidays - gotta love 'em. Hope yours are good!

I'm afraid this is rather awkward for me. I remember your long list of docos, but I don't keep a running list of any such thing. To me, something is either worth remembering or not. I've seen a lot of conspiracy minded (as I defined above) video on you-tube and even Link TV. I disagree with all of it. They all suffer from the same condition I related above, of listing a barrage of facts, which they then stitch together within their chosen context. I am aware of all the conspiracies in the OP, and reject them all.

I'm also not quite sure what to make of your somewhat demanding tone that I decide if I want to 'get into this'. I am discussing it, at least laterally, and have no wish to enter into some kind of contract to discuss. In fact, I can't say as I've ever seen such a thing asked so directly of anyone before.

Not that anyone would take it seriously. Net anonymity is easily abused. I could say in the military I worked both field positions and control, I worked with Loral Aerospace and Lockheed Martin in Government contracting, and Hewlett Packard, Agilent, Intel, Honeywell, Applied Materials and others in the private sector. I could say I played video games with real aircraft at Area 51 - who would know any different? I suppose then proof would be in order, but do you suppose it is wise to give highly personal details of myself and potentially sensitive information of our military and a dozen major companies to complete strangers on the internet, your esteemed self included? Sadly, if you think about it, the more relavent to this discussion any personal information I might have is, the less business I have posting it. It's just the pragmatic legality of effecting more people.

You, in turn, could do the same - again, avoiding incriminating details, who would know? And what is the point of the exercise in the first place? To establish authoritative chops - an informational pecking order? Hopefully I've disabused you of that notion.

I feel there is plenty to discuss without making it into a contest. You know - just regular, friendly, open discussion - as usual.