Former conspiracy believer here

[TjW]

Well, to construct some form of defense here, I'd like to point out that I am offering a direct route to understanding just where one might find Illuminati and who they are.

It is simply to point the mind back to before the arisal of the objective mindset, not chronologically, but here and now. Becoming aware that objectivity proceeds from an assumption about the nature of selfhood a considerable vista is opened up, one that was travelled by the Alchemists themselves on route to transcending their seeming confines and becoming illuminated.

Believing that objectivity is truth the passage shuts down again.

Nick

Why would you feel the need for a defense? How have I attacked? Both subjectively and objectively, the nature of subjective and objective is not a conspiracy theory. That's philosophy. Thus my suggestion that it be moved to an appropriate part of the forum.
It's not Humor, it's civil enough not to merit Abandon All Hope.

 

[PixyMisa]

I'm not disputing that thoughts are real. I'm disputing that thoughts have possession, or rather that it can be demonstrated that they have possession. These are thoughts is real. These are my thoughts is an assumption. Limited selfhood is an assumption.

Nope. Thoughts and identity alike are demonstrably, objectively real, and are the same class of process.

Yes, the notion of limited selfhood is constructed, assumed to be real.

Except for all of the people who demonstrably have one. Or, in certain cases, two.

Assuming itself to have a personal identity, the mind responds to situations in such a manner, assuming that it has something tangible to uphold or defend. Actually there is nothing there, just the assumption! Because it hasn't looked!

Completely false. We have accepted the assumption that the apparent external universe is what is real. We do examine this assumption every single day. It never, ever fails.

How does an identity have a thought? Could you demonstrate the relationship.

You seem to have the wrong sense there. An identity has thoughts in the same way an ant colony has ants.

 

[PixyMisa]

People like me who are saying "Look!" Check it out! Your mind is functioning as though it has a personal identity....but have you checked?!

You still seem to be confused as to what sort of thing identity is.

If a calculator is functioning as though it were adding numbers, then it is adding numbers.

Anyone who has been conditioned to accept objectivity as truth would consider it baloney.

It's conditioning in the technical sense, in that if you tentatitvely accept objectivity, you find that it works, and thus the belief is consistently reinforced.

That's not what you mean, of course.

Perhaps you would care to share some of their insights.

I can, but there is no better place to start than the MIT 9.00 Introduction to Psychology lecture series presented by Jeremy Wolfe. Enlightening, entertaining, and extremely accessible.

I submit, you can study neurophysiology until you're blue in the face, you won't find the ego, the relative sense of selfhood. It's constructed by the mind from assumptions. Simply sitting still and becoming aware of your thoughts will demonstrate this.

The relative sense of selfhood is a brain process, so obviously you won't study it simply by examining physiology. As for the ego... Have you read any works on psychiatry written in the last 50 years?

There might be neural remnants resulting from the belief in personal identity, certainly it can be mirrored in the body. But it is an artificial construct.

Really? On what basis do you claim this? Particularly given that it is universal in humans and has also been identified in a number of other animal species.

It goes against what you have been conditioned to believe, yes.

Nope. It's simply wrong.

There is no such thing as subjective science. By definition, science only deals with objective fact.

That's the first assumption, yes. The second assumption is that the observer and the observed can be distinguised. You need to assume a finite observer. Yet there is actually no evidence for this.

That's not an assumption. We have assumed that the apparent external universe is what is real, and we are simply part of it. That we can distinguish between observer and observed is a testable hypothesis, and a true one.

Well, I wasn't aware of the actual time it took, but seems pretty reasonable to me.

The order, Nick, the order.

First you act. Then you make the decision. Got that?

Science is great, PM. But objectivity does proceed from assumptions. And if you're not aware of this that's because you haven't tested the assumptions for yourself.

There is one assumption, that can be examined but not directly tested. But science itself is a meta-experiment on the question, and since it always work, it is safe to stick to our original assumption.

 

[PixyMisa]

The corpus callosum? I didn't really understand how it was relevant. Could you explain it to me more.

If you had read a psychology text written in the last fifty years you would be aware of the effect on personal identity of the severing of the corpus callosum, whether through trauma, disease, or surgery. In many respects, it splits identity in two, resulting in neurological phenomena like alien hand syndrome, and the disconnection of specific cognitive functions. (Do follow that link. It's very instructive.)

 

[Belz...]

Have you read any works on psychiatry written in the last 50 years?

Of course he hasn't, just like he hasn't read a philosopher since Plato.

 

[Nick227]

Nope. Thoughts and identity alike are demonstrably, objectively real, and are the same class of process.

Thoughts exist. We experience thoughts. Science can even map how they arise.

Identity is constructed. Can you show any evidence that identity is demonstrably real, that it is not assumed? I can find no evidence that it is, other than hearsay (other people's beliefs). Science cannot locate a "seat of identity" - a place where the ego is located. Thus I state that identity is a construct. It is assumed.

Except for all of the people who demonstrably have one. Or, in certain cases, two.

There is a sense of having a personal identity. But I submit that you cannot demonstrate it to be objectively real.

Completely false. We have accepted the assumption that the apparent external universe is what is real. We do examine this assumption every single day. It never, ever fails.

I am not talking about the apparent, external universe. I am talking about the experience of having a personal identity. Can you demonstrate objectively that it is real? Can you demonstrate that everything that is happening is actually happening to someone? Or merely that it is simply happening?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Like, Nick, your suggestion that we're being ruled by the Illuminati using some sort(s) of ancient woo. Fascinating, even though most of the time I have no idea what you're on about and rely on the responses to your posts for some sort of clarification.

I mean, if this Illuminati/woo thing is real.. I want a piece of it and if joining the Rosecrusians is the route to a mega yacht. sign me up

Hey Stout,

You don't have to join the Rosicrucians! A little self-inquiry is sufficient. It's the first stage of the Alchemical process - tearing down the constructs of the false sense of individuality.

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Identity is constructed. Can you show any evidence that identity is demonstrably real, that it is not assumed?

As I said, if a calculator looks like it's adding numbers, it's adding numbers.

Theres nothing magical about personal identity. If it looks and acts like personal identity, it's not a duck.

I can find no evidence that it is, other than hearsay (other people's beliefs). Science cannot locate a "seat of identity" - a place where the ego is located.

Wrong. It's a brain process.

There is a sense of having a personal identity. But I submit that you cannot demonstrate it to be objectively real.

Wrong again. All I have to do to prove that it is objectively real is to ask people if they have it. This has been done. They answer is pretty definitive.

I am not talking about the apparent, external universe. I am talking about the experience of having a personal identity. Can you demonstrate objectively that it is real? Can you demonstrate that everything that is happening is actually happening to someone? Or merely that it is simply happening?

All of the above.

As I said, it's not magical. Personal identity is simply an information process that will respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. When we test people (and several animal species) we consistently get the expected response, therefore personal identity objectively exists.

 

[PixyMisa]

P.S. Nick: Read up on the mirror test. Human infants fail the test. Adult chimps, orangutans, dolphins and elephants pass. How exactly are those dolphins indoctrinated into the cult of the transient I?

 

[PixyMisa]

Of course he hasn't, just like he hasn't read a philosopher since Plato.

Plato and Freud. No wonder he's confused.

 

[Nick227]

So now the NWO is LITERALLY a magic, supernatural entity?

I hope you don't mind, but I'm nominating you for a Stundie.

Hi 1337,

No problem! If I give you my overall personal opinion you may well think this is even more suitable!

Personally, I figure that through the pursuit of Alchemy and other subjective sciences some people succeeded in overcoming the need to die quite an age ago. They can exist at the interior, deathless levels of awareness pretty much indeterminably, constructing and losing physical bodies as desired. Their overall objective is the completion of their Great Work - the stated aim of Alchemy, Qabalah, Rosicrucianism and no doubt other strands of the same perennial philosophy, such as Gnosticism and Freemasonry. To do this they need to create a global society - the Novus Ordo Seclorum written about by Virgil. Once this is done they will also need to set into effect unconscious bodily processes that will liberate all mankind, most notably the unfolding of the pineal gland unto fullness. These two goals, the unified global culture and the fully opened pineal are represented symbolically on the reverse of the Great Seal, btw, as the unfinished pyramid and the capstone/all-seeing eye motif.

Globalisation, the first goal, has been a bit tricky for them. They set up the USA as prototype world culture and, once it was stablised, set out to expand it across the globe. The fastest route to achieving globalisation has involved setting up some pretty negative and fear-filled organisations, which might generically be referred to as NWO. The World Bank and IMF have created a strategy of financial control and manipulation to draw a multitude of poorer countries into the global web. The media have pushed the American vision out to growing numbers of people all over the world. Things are moving ahead but there remains the problem of what to do with the NWO now that their role is increasingly unneeded, and their level of personal fear so high that they will try and cling to power.

Ergo the rise of the CT. As our overall level of awareness slowly rises so certain repressed aspects of the psyche begin to manifest on the borders of consciousness and people experience a bizarre compulsion to interpret reality in a manner which forwards this. There may some process the Alchemists can set in motion which causes the group "authority trip" to arise, and straight away many people are believing CTs! The CT serves the purpose of pushing the NWO into greater self-examination and disclosure. It weakens their hold.

Finally, reality is completely non-dual and so any construct, any conjecture, any proof, any agreed version of history is inevitably fraught with insecurity if tested heavily. No one actually knows anything, yet only a microscopic chunk of the population are aware of this.

What do you think?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

Why would you feel the need for a defense? How have I attacked? Both subjectively and objectively, the nature of subjective and objective is not a conspiracy theory. That's philosophy. Thus my suggestion that it be moved to an appropriate part of the forum.
It's not Humor, it's civil enough not to merit Abandon All Hope.

Hi TjW,

Well, I do try and have some respect for forum rules and I feel this thread may now have drifted from the OP. So that's what I meant by "defend."

Regarding philosophy, I'm not much interested in it. I'm just saying that objectivity itself does not stand up to objective scrutiny. It's a construct. This relates to CTs in that my contention would be that there's a chance our group obsession with objectivity, as 21st C humans, is being manipulated into being.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

If you had read a psychology text written in the last fifty years you would be aware of the effect on personal identity of the severing of the corpus callosum, whether through trauma, disease, or surgery. In many respects, it splits identity in two, resulting in neurological phenomena like alien hand syndrome, and the disconnection of specific cognitive functions. (Do follow that link. It's very instructive.)

Hi PM,

Could you explain to me how this undermines what I'm saying because I don't see it. I'm talking about the phenomena of identification with thought - the belief that the thoughts are yours - from which the notion of personal selfhood is constructed.

I don't see how splitting this identification into owned-disowned aspects, such as certain neurological phenomena like the one you mention, can do, is relevant. Can you explain more?

Nick

 

[Nick227]

As I said, if a calculator looks like it's adding numbers, it's adding numbers.

Theres nothing magical about personal identity. If it looks and acts like personal identity, it's not a duck.

Except that a duck has substance. Personal identity does not.

Wrong. It's a brain process.

Yes, the brain develops the capacity to create the notion of limited selfhood. This doesn't mean that limited selfhood, personal identity, actually exists. Merely that the apparatus of mind has the capacity to respond to situations as though it were.

Wrong again. All I have to do to prove that it is objectively real is to ask people if they have it. This has been done. They answer is pretty definitive.

The belief in personal identity exists, for sure. I wouldn't dispute it for an instant. I'm saying it has no basis in empiric reality. Many people believed that the earth was flat once upon a time. Would you consider this proof that it was? I'd consider it proof that many people believed it was.

As I said, it's not magical. Personal identity is simply an information process that will respond in certain ways to certain stimuli. When we test people (and several animal species) we consistently get the expected response, therefore personal identity objectively exists.

Yes, personal identity is constructed and the apparatus of mind responds to situations as though there was some "I" inside. For sure you can demonstrate that the belief is real and exists. But you can't demonstrate that there is anything on which to substantiate the belief.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

P.S. Nick: Read up on the mirror test. Human infants fail the test. Adult chimps, orangutans, dolphins and elephants pass. How exactly are those dolphins indoctrinated into the cult of the transient I?

Hi PM,

You can demonstrate that humans and some animal specifies can believe in limited selfhood, or recognise the image of their body. However this does nothing to demonstrate that limited selfhood is real, that there is anything substantial on which to base the belief. It's an assumption.

Nick

 

[Nick227]

I can, but there is no better place to start than the MIT 9.00 Introduction to Psychology lecture series presented by Jeremy Wolfe. Enlightening, entertaining, and extremely accessible.


The relative sense of selfhood is a brain process, so obviously you won't study it simply by examining physiology. As for the ego... Have you read any works on psychiatry written in the last 50 years?

Hi PM,

I haven't read many works on psychiatry full stop! The relative sense of selfhood may well be a brain process. Certainly I would agree that it is a process of mind. Would you agree that without this process objectivity would be a pretty tough proposition?

Nick

 

[PixyMisa]

Personally, I figure that through the pursuit of Alchemy and other subjective sciences

Oxymoron.

some people succeeded in overcoming the need to die quite an age ago.

Evidence?

They can exist at the interior, deathless levels of awareness pretty much indeterminably, constructing and losing physical bodies as desired.

Evidence?

Their overall objective is the completion of their Great Work - the stated aim of Alchemy, Qabalah, Rosicrucianism and no doubt other strands of the same perennial philosophy, such as Gnosticism and Freemasonry.

Evidence?

To do this they need to create a global society - the Novus Ordo Seclorum written about by Virgil. Once this is done they will also need to set into effect unconscious bodily processes that will liberate all mankind, most notably the unfolding of the pineal gland unto fullness.

The pineal gland?

These two goals, the unified global culture and the fully opened pineal are represented symbolically on the reverse of the Great Seal, btw, as the unfinished pyramid and the capstone/all-seeing eye motif.

Would it not be more logical that the eye represents, oh, an eye?

Globalisation, the first goal, has been a bit tricky for them. They set up the USA as prototype world culture and, once it was stablised, set out to expand it across the globe.

Globalisation is nothing more than trade, accelerated by technology. You can more justly blame Marco Polo, or for that matter, the Phoenicians.

The fastest route to achieving globalisation has involved setting up some pretty negative and fear-filled organisations

Why?

which might generically be referred to as NWO.

Or not.

The World Bank and IMF have created a strategy of financial control and manipulation to draw a multitude of poorer countries into the global web.

Evidence?

The media have pushed the American vision out to growing numbers of people all over the world.

"The media" disseminate information, so this is indisputable. "The media" have also pushed other things. A remarkable variety of other things.

Things are moving ahead but there remains the problem of what to do with the NWO now that their role is increasingly unneeded, and their level of personal fear so high that they will try and cling to power.

Or not.

Ergo the rise of the CT.

Conspiracy theories are not new, nor are they unusually prevalent today.

As our overall level of awareness slowly rises so certain repressed aspects of the psyche begin to manifest on the borders of consciousness and people experience a bizarre compulsion to interpret reality in a manner which forwards this. There may some process the Alchemists can set in motion which causes the group "authority trip" to arise, and straight away many people are believing CTs! The CT serves the purpose of pushing the NWO into greater self-examination and disclosure. It weakens their hold.

And your evidence for any of this is?

Finally, reality is completely non-dual and so any construct, any conjecture, any proof, any agreed version of history is inevitably fraught with insecurity if tested heavily. No one actually knows anything, yet only a microscopic chunk of the population are aware of this.

Do you have even the remotest understanding of the process of science, Nick? Because this is pretty much backwards.

What do you think?

I think you're utterly delusional.

I don't think you're insane or stupid. But I do think you are ignorant of every aspect of science, from physics to biology to psychology to economics. I don't see even a seventh-grade understanding of any scientific subject in your posts, but instead a cavalcade of counterfactual claims.

I suggest you start with the inclined plane, and work your way up from there.

 

[Nick227]

Oxymoron.


Evidence?


Evidence?


Evidence?

Hi PM,

Well, I was just posting a bit of conjecture! I have actually no idea, to be honest. I'm just not convinced that the large scale movement towards globalisation that I see having taken place over the last decades has happened by chance, spontaneously, or through some self-creating process. So I look for an explanation that I consider more likely. I doubt anyone would find mine anything more than amusing!

BTW, with regard to the notion of limited selfhood being a mental process - if it is then this does rather beg the question "What is it that experiences this process?" It seems to me that whatever entity this might be would have rather more right to being considered "I" than the process itself.

Nick

 

[Belz...]

Identity is constructed. Can you show any evidence that identity is demonstrably real, that it is not assumed? I can find no evidence that it is, other than hearsay (other people's beliefs). Science cannot locate a "seat of identity" - a place where the ego is located. Thus I state that identity is a construct. It is assumed.

Just like emotions and perceptions ?

Are you going to adress my last posts, or not ?

 

[Nick227]

I don't think you're insane or stupid. But I do think you are ignorant of every aspect of science, from physics to biology to psychology to economics. I don't see even a seventh-grade understanding of any scientific subject in your posts, but instead a cavalcade of counterfactual claims.

Well, I do have a basic grounding in the sciences. It's just that these things don't really deal with what I'm talking about here. Which to be honest is a big part of the issue.

As I'm endeavouring to point out, science (objective science) merely offers the opportunity to evaluate phenomena, and attempt to construct relationships, from a perspective that proceeds from assumptions. When you take away the assumptions, you are left with what actually is.

I'm not trying to devalue science, nor objectivity. I'm just seeking to put it into overall context. I'm seeking to allow people to see for themselves that it is a house constructed on nothing. And perhaps offering the opportunity to start to grasp just how much may have been missed through our pursuit of objectivity. For one who can see this, they can also see how the Illuminati are perhaps not so unlikely after all.

Nick