Genital Compatibility vs Homosexuality

The term Homosexuality fails for loads of reasons e.g. its a contradiction anyway, you can't have 1 sex, there must be at least 2 so its a term that already suggests a problem.

To put that another way suppose all men were magically removed from the world, then everyone would be woman and after we had forgotten about men all together then women would forget they were women--as everyone was the same and there was nothing to say here--then there would be no sex (as a noun). Presumably some technology existed to enable women to make babies with other women otherwise in a generation there would be no humans at all. And the activity of women with women to make babies would only be called "sex" historically. But at some time in the future people would wonder what the origins of this word was as relationships using the apparatus of childbirth no longer involved sexes. the only constant as technology evolves is that 2 copies of the DNA will be needed to make a new human.

So what actual is the issue with Homosexuality (if there is one)? It is Genetical Compatibility isn't it. Sexes come in two types that fit together literally like a lock and key. So sexual relationships work because of genetical compatibility. The problems occur when there is incompatibility. This may be due to same sex attraction, but it can be due to deformity or injury. Heterosexual couples who experience damage to their genitals can be thrown into the problems at Homosexual couples. And if one partner if Transgender then this only becomes a problem if the transgender operation changes their genital arrangement.

So rather than focus on "sexual attraction" perhaps we can just ignore this, and make it a medical issue of Genital Compatibility.

One reason for changing the thinking comes from the Law. All parts of the world consider anal-sex a perversion and there are rules against it. Only with liberal changes to law in the West very recently has this changed. Even Buddhism, which is famously about peace and compassion, says that anal-sex is to be avoided. I wonder whether was in termed as "anti-gay" is really just "anti anal sex."

What do the clerics in Qatar say to "homosexual" relationships that exclude the possibility of anal sex? #TODO find out what Muhammad actually said about this.

Anyway pretty sure there are a number of issues here that the LGBT community have crudely just lumped together as prejudice.

But if we focus instead on this issue of Genital Compatibility then we have an actual definable issue. Even homosexuals must find a solution to incompatibility.

Now it is argued that the anus has a lot of unnecessary sensory and pleasure receptors that can only be there is the anus had evolved as a pleasure organ. Indeed why ban something that is unpleasant. We don't need to ban hard work, or standing out in the cold because we are not overly attracted to these things. There must be attraction to anal sex for it to be banned. But on the other hand if its pleasurable then why ban it? It's not like we ban eating good food.

And this raises questions about the nature of pleasure and sexual relationships. Obviously sexual activity evolved from procreation. All the organs and processes have a role to play in pregnancy and conception. But sex plays a much more complex role in human society, especially Modern Western society. But its played a role in religious festivals and entertainment and has a wide presence on cultures around the world. It is clearly more than even binary relationships. Modern post-Christian society still focuses on sex between partners and with the advent of Gay-Marriage the gay community focuses more and more on what they previously termed Conservative and Bigoted: the binary partnership.

Anyway big subject just dumping some ideas.

===

So why the story of Sodom and Gomorrah? What was the deal traditionally with anal sex, well and unrestricted sex?

One theory is disease. The reason for strict traditional sexual structures is to stop the spread of STDs. To back this up is the observation than on Polynesian islands where there was no disease, sailors reported free love. Once Western sailors brought disease naturally the culture changed to stop the spread of disease. You see this in animals. Monogamy in animals can be seen as a way to sto the spread of diseases. Birds who travel far and could produce global pandemics are very often incredibly monogamous sticking with the same partner throughout their life, and even stopping breeding if that partner dies so strong is the instinct **. Obviously there is no moral or religious restriction here, it is what they do without question. This would explain why promiscuous people are viewed as "dirty." They literally may be carrying disease.

** Update 8 Nov 2022 this study suggests that if this is true it is over ridden by the need to mate. Long distance migrants are also more likely to mis-time breeding, and so more likely to change partner.

Another reason analysed at length (and I can't say theory because I don't know if its in the literature but from my own observations and thinking) is that men do not want children with unfaithful women who may bear them someone else's children. This is more than ego, in Capitalist societies men do not want other men laying claim to their capital. But genetically its the instinct to further your own genes (in Neo-Darwinism any gene that does not in some way promote its own survival gets lost). As a result men will be allowed much more promiscuous behaviour than women in Capitalist society, which is what we actually saw until WW2 and women starting to abandon child care for paid labour. Now that women bring in a large part, even larger part of a families income the wife does not care whether she is looking after the husbands children or not. If he doesn't like it then leave, she can afford it herself. From his perspective however he doesn't want to give money to another man's children so his investment in the family is reduced, or even extinguished and he has no reason to stay around. I believe you see this a lot more in Caribbean families where traditionally women are strong and unfaithful, and men therefore have no loyalty to the family. Female faithfulness is key to male loyalty. Which is why if the male cheats it is so devastating to the female because she has made this sacrifice to keep him (presumably for the money to support the family). On the other hand though, if she cheats he will lose interest in supporting the family as he can no longer be sure they are his children. DNA tests solve this, and there should be law to make DNA testing a legal requirement if the male has doubts. Marriage is obviously intimately linked to all this, which is why Gay Marriage makes literally no sense traditionally. But what has made it meaningful is the possibility of surrogates and technology. Now gay couples can "sort of" have their own children and so sort of have "families." I started off with Genital Incompatibility as a concept but really this has only evolved because of the really fundamental dynamics of "making new humans."

Quick biology lesson. Humans are Diploid which means they have 2 copies of the DNA. To make a new human traditionally you take 1 copy from one partner and 1 copy from the other. This is the very reason why there are 2 sexes. Its then the reason those sexes "go together" and why there must be genetical compatibility. This is the underpinning of the whole structure.

If HomoSexuals wish to take part in this process of forming families and children we await the day when a mechanism is created to enable one DNA copy to come from 1 gay parent and 1 from the other.

But its worse than this because parents are not equal. One parent must supply the cell for the new DNA. This is called the egg in animals, but all organisms through the multi cellular kingdoms do this. So one sex creates large cells for the new DNA and the other creates mobile carriers for the DNA so that it can find and unite with the other copy. That microscopic process is then played out in the macroscopic world with dating sites, people looking for each other and romantic tragedy like Romeo and Juliet. When Sophocles wrote The Symposium about love isn't it amazing that one of the ideas is the myth of gods breaking humans into two halves which must search for each other. This fundamental structure that we all familiar with, reflects the deeper microscopic dynamics of making new humans, indeed all plants and animal. This is why there are 2 sexes and why partnerships involve 2, and why they are different with one more involved in the creation of new people (the egg carrier) than the other (the mobile gamete producer). And given that each sex has a different role you need opposite sexes to be genitally compatible, but same sexes to be incompatible, which is why 95% of the population is heterosexual an seek opposite genitals in their sexual relationships. For breeding success in any organism you do not want incorrect sexes mating, that is not productive, and so you make it impossible for homosexual partners to actually copulate forcing them into heterosexual partnership.

A section here on genital compatibility in the animal kingdom. Mammals can actually have sex with each other. This is called bestiality in humans. Given what has been said why are we not genitally incompatible with other animals? Well the assumption is its easy to tell a human partner even from our nearest relative the chimpanzee. There is no chance of mistake. But in the animal world not so. Lots of insects deliberately look like each other for camouflage or mimicry. A testament to the importance of not wasting your reproductive time and energy is the huge array of variation that exists in colouration in insects. And even more important the huge array of genital types that stops breeding between the wrong species. When identifying insects the real test used by experts is analysis of the genitals. Most insect species in fact come in groups that are so similar you need to study genital compatibility. But with visible features male insects particularly come in all kinds of colours the butterflies most famously. They are literally like flying flowers. Flowers are actually highly attractive to attract insects that are used as pollinators. Male insects however are highly attractive to both attract mates but also attract the correct mates. And there can be Sexy Son Hypothesis at work and similar dynamics so that males actually become ungainly and flamboyant to prove their general health. Females it is argued evolve to be more attracted to these crazy males because it means their female offspring--once they have shed the male's absurd features--will be much stronger. Because males serve only one job of moving the sperm around, actually most of the actual hard work and practical dynamics falls on females. You can almost see this in human society where, especially today in West, males get criticised by females for not be practical for messing around with sports and abstract past-times, while the women are actually much more concerned with the real world dynamics of friends, family, house and child management. Anyway males and females have completely different gametes and as a result end up with completely different roles and so it is essential for them to have different genitals to ensure no mix ups.

Now with everything said there is no actual reason why you could not have a genital arrangement which there is a mutual exchange of DNA. You see this a lot in nature like with worms and molluscs. After "sex" having exchanged sperm, both individuals create eggs. The idea of "sex" doesn't work here because both functions are performed by both partners. However note that it still requires 2 as each partner needs another half to make eggs.

Why can't we just copy our own DNA and have children with no partner? Or alternatively have genitals that enable us to have sex with our self? In fact this happens in nature. Many plants can self-fertilise and many organisms like aphids can clone themselves. Why is it not widespread? Well this is the question of why sex evolved in the first place. Given how much time is spent finding a partner and merging DNA why do it at all? Sex evolved a very long time ago, about 1 billion years ago at current estimates. That is at the very start of life on Earth (by current estimates). That is to say evidence of genitals and sexual differences is visible in fossils from basically the start. It must be important. The prevailing theory is the reason that incest is outlawed. The children of brothers and sisters mating have much higher incidence of disease. The reason is linked to why we have 2 copies of the DNA at all. Often there are mistakes and genes get corrupted. If you have sex with yourself you are duplicating these same errors and so both sides of the DNA have them and they get far worse. It also means that once a bad gene occurs in the family there is no way out. Sex it is suggested evolved to keep mixing genes. This enables families to get new genes in and get rid of bad genes. Since absolutely all organisms do this even bacteria it is clearly very important. So another reason that sexes have incompatible genitals is actually to stop breeding with the self. The closest you can get with our genital arrangement is to breed with siblings, which is outlawed cos it is not a good way to make children. But if we were truly homosexual that would be outlawed anyway as the offspring would be mutants.

Now If a culture allows homosexual partnership then the genes for homosexuality stop being passed on as they cannot have children and this marks the end of the homosexuality!  Indeed liberalism is the death knell of homosexuality. In pervious cultures where gays were forced into traditional relationships they could pass on their genes!

So why homosexuality at all? Prisons are full of people with polyploidy and two Y chromosomes. It seems the Y chromosome makes you violent. One argument is that genes to counter this also lead sometimes to homosexuality. Not sure if proven, but just an example of one genetic argument.

But times are changing and the technology will soon be available where one lesbian partner can artificially fertilise her partners eggs. And more problematic but possible the DNA from an egg can be replaced with fertilised DNA of two gay partners and the placed in a surrogate. It seems a lot of work just to meet the desires of partners and their particular "sexual attraction" but this is the modern culture where getting what you desire and want is everything (not saying that is a bad thing--except Flowers from Dhammapada suggests problems--but times have changed and before it was not like this).

But why after all this is anal-sex so frowned upon? Time up ... TBC

===

No idea why anal-sex is outlawed yet. But instead a reason why it shouldn't. Our closest animal cousins are the chimpanzees and famously there are 2 species. The familiar ones, but also the Bonobo. Bonobo society is matriarchal and sex plays a central role in social bonding. It means that all males have sexual intercourse with both other males and females and clearly for reasons beyond procreation. Do this suggest that sex in humans like with Polynesian culture could play a role in social bonding and grooming and in fact, if Polynesian culture is to go by, if there was no chance of passing on disease it would be? However the other feature of Polynesian culture was that it was Socialist and not Capitalist. There was shared ownership and society was organised around the community. In Capitalist societies where there is private ownership, people naturally want to limit children so that the capital stays in the family. This for instance is why Aristocratic society often breeds cousin so that the family titles and wealth remain close, and why Aristocrats are often inbred and show signs of genetic illness.

===

Lesbanism was never made illegal in the UK. In fact there has never been any legislation regarding lesbians. Lesbians are and have always been free in the UK. The only restrictions have been on Male Homosexuality and in particular anal sex. So this very much underlines the global problem with Homosexuality that it is not male/male interest but the fact that male homosexuals have a tendency to take part in anal sex. It is Anal Sex that is outlawed both in Homo and Hetero-sexuals. This goes back to Jewish Law and is the Law across the world since the dawn of time.

So the LGBT community has rather misinterpreted history and rather misunderstood the problem. If they were the agree to avoid Anal Sex like the Heterosexual community then there never was problem.

In 1989 Anal Sex was made legal in the UK as part of of the Poll Tax bill and this was actually the great change in legislation that over turned the entire history of the human race. Gay Marriage and Gay Rights are just secondary things, and actually don't even apply to Lesbians who never had reduced Rights.

This does rather suggest that its only one particular genital compatibility that was at issue and that was sex involved two penes, but only when it included the anus.

 

Single Coin flips, Destiny, Choice and Karma. How to use Divination properly.

Have blogged on this before but revisited cos it much clearer now.

In modern thinking we dismiss the coin flip because the outcome is random. It can be either Heads or Tails with equal probability.

But this is not actually true. For it to be random or equal probability we must assume that there is a large number of coin flips. It can be either Heads or Tails comes from the thinking that given multiple coin flips there is an even chance of it being a Head or a Tail. So that on this particular coin flip it can be either a Head or a Tail.

Statistics starts with the premise that we are studying a population, or multiple events. If we limit it to just a single coin flip we cannot apply statistics or statistical concepts. It can't be a head or a tail because it is just one thing.

We might protest that given a brand new game to play, never played before, we need only enquire what the possible states are and all-other-things-being-equal we can say that the outcome of a single event is evenly between these states. Then we can destroy the game to make sure it is never played again. A single event. But when enquiring about the possible events we enter a solution space which presupposes all the possible outcomes. We are implicitly assuming that the game could be played again even if it isn't.

It means that actually we have no way to think about the outcome of a single coin flip! With emphasis on just this time and space.

Its interesting that this is the crux of Quantum Physics. Particular events start life as a state which occupies all possibilities. You can't think Quantum Reality as just single events, they are always born of all possibilities. I'm arguing here for thinking that turns this world on its head (from its tail). Single events exist by themselves independent of the possibilities.*

*ok arguing with myself here. If we map a binary decision onto a coin flip. Aren't we already presupposing that both possibilities exist. If they didn't then how do we have the dilemma. So possibility precedes actuality. But in Divination and Destiny we are thinking that the decision has already been made, and we are only uncovering the Truth. The thought there is a possibility appears to exist only because we cannot see the Reality truthfully. Solving Dilemma is not a matter of choice, but of discovery.

Now Quantum Physics, the Bell Inequality in particular, has shown that Einstein was wrong and the world is decided and does not await discovery. The fact is that discovery is involved in deciding. So things remain in the state of possibility until discovered. And this is known from the strange phenomenon of entanglement, which in turn exists because of a more fundamental and more familiar law of conservation of energy. To conserve energy when quantum states are split they must produce two particles with opposite character. By measuring these two particles you would expect the counts to be equal and random. But (if I understand correctly) it turns out that deviations from random correlate showing that the counters are influencing each other. #TODO make this clearer.

Anyway Quantum Physics suggests that indeed the coin exists in both states until measured. The single event is indeed plucking a particular coin from the particular pool. But in Divination we want to turn this upside down and imagine there is just one coin there which we are revealing. I guess the issue here is where does the decision actually occur? Does it occur in the measurement and coin flip like in Quantum Physics or does it occur before we even ask the question. The problem with the idea that the coin flip decides it, is that we can just flip again and decide again. We are trying to limit this to an actual result. And to do that we need to limit to coin flips and possibilities to just one, which I'm claiming here is the ancient way of thinking. And we do that before we even flip the coin. Perhaps this may seen a really pedantic and trivial point, but the issue of reality and possibility is actually an ancient and huge issue.

So Tarot Cards and other divining methods use a long forgotten feature of reality. When the Greeks selected a goat, sacrificed it and examined its entrails since it was only done once you can't just say the outcome was luck or not. Since it was done only once, that was the outcome! If the entrails were abnormal then indeed that was what you were stuck with. You can't just pick another one. Thems the rules!

So in actual fact once restricted to a single event, we have no modern way to think about it. I don't know if we can write into that space ideas of cosmic order and destiny, but as a river only flows one way, and there is no turning back, single events are critical to writing actual stories and creating narratives through time.

A film would be rather uninteresting if the protagonist got an infinite number of lives like a computer game. What often happens is that the protagonist survives unbelievably unlikely events, like jumping a car and just happening to have the power to clear the canyon. We can see this retrospectively, that had the protagonist fallen into the ravine the film would never have been made, so we know that the lead makes it - an Anthropic Argument. But that relies upon "infinite worlds." There must be millions of stories being thought about, but the ones where the lead dies in the middle of the story never get written, or published or make it to cinema.

But never-the-less we suspend disbelief and follow the apparent "single events" through the film as our lucky hero appears to have the blessing of the gods guiding him.

Our life is actually "single events" (you don't get to do life again) and we can apply Anthropic Argument in a way, so that when an unlikely event happen we can say that well it happens to millions of people, I was just the lucky or the unlucky one. But when you hear survivors of accidents speak, especially if they survived by some miracle they feel guilty that "they" are the one who survived. You might argue that well someone was always going to survive, so it just happens to have been you, and you shouldn't worry about it.

But the fundamental "attachment" we have to our self means that we take the things that happen to us more seriously and fundamentally than those which happen to other people. "But why me" we keep asking ourselves. This works for bad events too. When an unlikely thing happens to us, like the death of our partner, we can't help thinking (despite knowing this happens a lot) why did it happen to me?

The answer there is attachment to this self. The less attached to this self and existence we are, the easier it is to see what happens to us as just part of the maelstrom of life that engulfs everyone.

But this is also the essence of karma. When we do a good or a bad thing they say that the fruits of that action come back to us, usually many fold. If we give £1 we can expect £10 to come back. If we steal £1 we can expect to lose £10.

This seems like mumbo-jumbo when you first hear it. How if I steal £1 from someone on holiday 1000s of miles away, when I get home will I lose £10? Are they going to track me down?

We forget one thing. You can travel 1000 miles to get away from a crime, but you can't get away from yourself.

Every action has an equal and opposite reaction. This is Newton's surprisingly profound and universal 3rd Law. 

Whatever drove you to commit the crime has not gone away. And it is this inner motivation which comes back to bite you. That clawing for £1, that need for £1 doesn't go away. £1 can never fix that. And its the remaining hole you were trying to fill that has now only grown, to about £10. You already feel like you have lost £10. This is the real meaning of the saying. But its more dangerous because your greedy actions make you behave in an unwise and reckless way and unless you fix that core greed, you will start losing.

This is how karma works. And ultimately it comes back to that experience of being attached to this person, this life, and this existence. It is that attachment that makes "our" life seem like the only one, that gives weight to the "single" of single events.

We lose the lottery is the classic. We feel like a failure. Except we don't cos we know that there are 10 million other losers out there. Yet someone does win (we hope the lottery is not a fraud, many are). When that person is us, we may find it overwhelming. I am so "lucky" it may change how we feel about our self. It may justify that "single" event attachment to our life. My life is blessed, my life is special. I don't need to think about other people, cos I got it all. I wonder whether this is the thinking that leads to so many people who find sudden wealth, then losing it all. And once it is lost they will be even more impoverished than before, so they cut off the world around them, to become the King at the centre of it all. And now tables are turned and there is bad luck, they are the sole recipient of it. How unlucky they must feel! Such suffering leads us to let go of this self, that is mortal and worthless really, and open up the millions of other lives all playing out around us. That in fact is the true wealth of the world.

But I slightly digress. The single event of a tarot card, or a coin flip, is indeed a single event and you cannot really apply statistics to it as long as you attach to it as "your" event, just for me, and just for now. This is the secret attraction of divination, but it does depend upon the core attachment we have to "our "life. It is probably this which is why it is frowned upon by religions, because it leads to attachment to the self, and not to God.

This is the ancient way of thinking, but with one Essential difference. We always have choice. This is the problem with The Dice Man. We may attribute decisions to the faces of a dice, and we may commit to roll that dice just once so that it is no longer statistical* and so that we remove our choice from the outcome. But actually no we didn't remove choice cos we chose to do this, and we can unchoose to do this. The essence of Dice Man is a sneaky trick to try and get a Past Self to make a contract with a Future Self that the Future Self cannot break. But of course it can break it. It is fooled if it thinks it cannot. We might make a decision to stop smoking, and that become very binding, and so it should; or we might make a decision to be faithful to a married partner, and that can be very binding, and so it should, and we are better for doing both. But if a past self made a silly decision like to play the lottery every week, it is wise for a later self to over rule this no matter how binding it appeared to be. Choice is not an opportunity to be weak willed, but it is an opportunity to review things and make more informed and better decisions. So Dice Man doesn't really work in that the outcomes of the dice are always open to review in the light of the present. No dice, or coin, or tarot or divination has any actual power. But it can be useful as a look into one's own real beliefs and intentions.

*this is beyond Dice Man, this is more the idea of Cosmic Divination where the universe is sending you a message.

The correct way to use a coin or dice.

(1) We write out some dilemmas we have. And settle on the outcomes that choose these.
(2) We agree to only do this once to remove (a) our influence (b) statistics, so that the outcome is singular and binding
(3) We perform the divination
(4) We look at how we feel about the outcome. It is this information which we really want from the exercise.

e.g.

Shall I get a cat or a dog? Shall I get a pet at all?

Obviously the first question is a leading question for a coin flip. What if the universe doesn't want us to have a cat or a dog!

(1) Heads: get a pet. If Heads then Heads: get a dog. we need maximum of two coin flips.
(2) Make the agreements seriously to our self.
(3) Flip the coins. Say we get Heads and Tails.
(4) The universe wants me to get a Cat. How do I feel about this. If I think excellent I'm so pleased that this is the outcome then we know what we want. If we think, oh dear I was really wishing for a dog, then we know what we think. If we are anxious about the cost of having a cat we know what we think. If we think actually no I don't like this result, maybe I'm not ready for a pet then we know what we think.

Its a tool to be used exactly like this. No more and no less.

===

Logical caveat. I've blogged on this I think.

(1) Heads: do not accept the outcome of coin flips.
(2) Make the agreements seriously to our self.

Of course the problem here is that we can't agree to take the coin flip seriously when one outcome is to not accept the outcome. So 2 contradicts 1 and invalidates the flip.

Likewise in the cat/dog example. If we flipped Tails then Head it means don't get a Pet, get a Dog. 2 contradicts 1 again. Tho actually we made 1 clearly say that if the first coin says don't get a pet then don't flip again. So when we did 2 we are sincere.

Suppose we make a mistake:
(1) Heads: Get a 3L Mini Cooper S car. Tails: Don't get this car.
(2) Make the agreements seriously to our self.

It comes up Heads. We go shopping and discover that only a 2L exists. It looks like the universe has let us down. It lied. But we can argue that it got us to do the proper research and find out that 3L doesn't exist. Now we can flip the coin again with proper information.

I mean how could the universe not lie with those options? It's been set up to fail. If the coin came up Tails then it would mean we didn't even go and find out that Heads was impossible. We would just scrap buying Minis all together.

Anyway there are always ways to think about the practice of Divination that make it work. But the one way of thinking that doesn't work is to believe that Divination can replace our Choice. when we do something it is always a choice, and the outcome belongs to us, so we better be happy about the choice before we make it. Divination is a useful way to explore what we think about choices.

===

I have been meaning to wrote an app for a long time, incorporating useful Linear Algebra, to help with decision making, but built ultimately on Divination. Some exist in fact, altho it could be made more interesting to not just use the random number, but get some world data like astronomical, stock market and chose based on this. Some existing apps have weighted decision matrices but I was thinking more complete linear algebra to explore variables as well.

===

So what of more complicated divination like Ouija. To get a message from a Ouija board is basically a long series of coin flips. You could use a 39 sided dice or 5 coin flips (encoding 32) for each character - that is 0-25 as characters, 26-28 for oct numeral, 29-30 yes/no, 31 goodbye. Obviously what is interesting is if the sequence was meaningful. This is clearly a very sophisticated form of divination. Without doubt the people using the Ouija do more than just supply the physical energy to move the planchette, they are critically involved in creating the message. In most cases messages with come in the language of the users. It would be interesting if anyone ever got a message in a language they did not know. The question is just where this message comes from. Now in the discussion above the question was whether the answer existed before, or was created by the divination (like in Quantum Physics). You would expect a Ouija board to give the same result for the same question, but perhaps not like with multiple coin flips. Obviously this is very involved, but I wanted to bring forward the insight into the correct use of Divination. Even with a Ouija board, regardless the message received, it is just information like with coin flips. The problem perhaps for people is their minds start to go wild wondering what lies behind the message. But do we go wild wondering what is behind the information in the single coin flip? This is where choice is SO important. Even if a "demon" was behind the message, it cannot take over your choice. Some people are susceptible to hypnosis, suggestion and various trance state where they appear to be controlled from outside. But I went to a lecture on the science of this stuff at Imperial College, London University where it was revealed that research into this shows that in reality even under the deepest states of suggestion people are actually "acting." They may not know it, but what is happening is that they are being given ideas which they "go along with" and act out. So someone says "you are a frog" and so they jump around like a child would, perhaps wondering why this seems like so much fun and such a sensible idea. When no longer under suggestion they can't believe they would do it, and it makes no sense. But all along it is "acting", not that acting is a very sophisticated state. The Ancient Greeks thought that the actor absorbed the spirit of the person they were acting, so that the audience actually had that person on stage. Very similar to Transubstantiation in Christianity where the Sacrament comes together into the spirit of Christ within the person. And really this IS what is happening, cos the whole idea is that we start to act like Christ to bring God's will onto the Earth. Quite how you think the metaphysics is not important. But the fundamental difference between the idea of "acting" and "possession" is Choice. The science shows that we always have choice, even in deep trance. A "possession" suggests that we are no longer ourselves, but this does not appear to ever happen. At best we become a channel for a spirit, but we are never that spirit, and we always hold the keys to the gate of who this is. This fits with Buddhist Theory that in essence what we are is a Buddha, and the layers of identity/personality/ignorance are all layered on top. So it means that our Buddha Nature is always in there shining, even in the midst of the greatest confusion and belief we are possessed. So all that said to enhance the role of Choice in Divination. The church is worried about Ouija because of its potential role in bringing "demons" into the world. But actually this is not really possible. However we should not be reckless, that is the theory, but most people do not have the wisdom and strength to see this clearly and things like Ouija are never going to be helpful are seeing the truth so why do it. Its like Heroine. Its true no one needs it, and we can all kick the habit. But some people are not so strong and can end up with serious addictions. Why make your life hard, just avoid it. Same with bad friends. While we are all good at root, being around bad people can be a bad influence. Its hard to stick up for what is right when you have to fight the pressures of the people around us. Life is just easier if we stick to good people. Same with Ouija. Why trouble ourselves with the subtleties of Divination and Choice if we don't need to. So that actually comes back to even coin flips. Choice is the key here, and decisions can only be made with Choice.

The moment the coin starts to decide for us, we have lost it and its no longer helpful to us, and the same for any Divination. This is most absolutely important to realise. But if we ever find that Divination methods, even Astrology Charts and Horoscopes start to make choices for us then that can be seen as Divination itself as we are getting a great insight into our lives and what we need. If we need guidance in life like this, then we have reached a point in life where it has lost its direction. We have become inauthentic and are no longer living. We should simplify and get back to the things that matter to us. Put all the rubbish and distractions on hold, and get back to the simple things that matter. Reorganise, take stock, re-establish and get the compass working again so we can see where we are going. Simple Meditation would without doubt be useful here.

When will people wake up to SRH? It seems a fundamental logical blind spot.

Consider this article by Donald Hoffman,

https://iai.tv/articles/donald-hoffman-spacetime-is-not-fundamental-auid-2281

Help with this puzzle [of why we experience in space and time] comes from an unexpected source: evolution by natural selection. Darwin informs us that our senses evolved to keep us alive until we raise kids. But what if selection did more? Could it shape our senses to report truths about objective reality?

Yes, it could. But the probability that it does is zero. This is the startling verdict of evolutionary game theory, a mathematical formulation of Darwin’s insight. Yes, our senses guide adaptive behavior. No, they are not a window on reality.

Then what are they? An adaptive fiction.

Armed with SRH we know that there must be limit to this evolutionary "theory".

He is saying that natural selection theory can explain why we see in space and time, as a useful encoding of the world for processing the survival problem.

That is our understanding of the world is making Space-Time a progressively obsolete idea. Yet we still actually experience the world in Space and Time. So we can understand that itself using Neo-Darwinian theory.

Lets say the general struggle here is to produce an Understanding of the world. We might have some function U(x) which is true when x is understood. And we are looking for a U such that for everything we can say we understand it: that is U(x) is true.

∀x∃U : U(x)

Then the obvious application of Self-Reference

U(U)

Can we understand the theory of understanding?

In the example above Understanding has led to theories on sensing in Space-Time through Natural Selection Theory, and Physics has led to theories that go beyond Space-Time. But in all this discussion the process of Understanding is taken as a given.

Senses and the World may be explained by Understanding, but we are progressing with Understanding itself assumed.

Replace "Understanding" with the word "Reason" and you have Kant now. He realised that all rational human endeavour was pinned upon the faculty of Reason itself. Senses, Memory and many other faculties were faulty (interesting similarity between those words) from the perspective of Reason that could investigate them and see errors. But what if Reason itself was faulty.

Well Kant didn't see SRH either. Hegel almost did. Brilliantly pointing out that U(U) is a problem. If U() is not reliable then how can U(U) tell us anything reliable.

But Hegel doesn't see SRH either. Cos the problem in U(U) or Understanding the faculty of Understanding with Understanding itself goes beyond the question of whether it is reliable.

As Hegel points out we must assume that U() works. Cos if it doesn't then how would we know? We only have Reason with which to reason. If Reason doesn't work we would never know. And that which you can never know is nothing itself. So Hegel starts Phenomenologically with "what he has" and realises that you can't retrospectively fit a theory, or fundamental principle to add reinforcement to Reason itself.

But SRH says that applying Reason to itself is already doomed.

If Reason is your foundation, then seeking to Reason about the foundation leads to a contradiction in a hugely general way (that is still not formulated, and perhaps can't be because that itself would be a contradiction, but we saw a possible escape clause if we allow of exception, which when negated become rules). That is SRH.

In the simplest way we use a ladder to climb above the ground. Once above the ground we can't then move the ladder without undermining our position.

In the above Understanding is our ladder. Once we have used Understanding to get somewhere, we can't then retrospectively investigate Understanding.

SRH is the general application of this to any function F() 

Property is an illusion. Wilderness' dark secret.

It's amazing that people get such a kick out of owning things. Don't they know that all the best things are free. Air, the sun, the moon, the rain, the sky, a good night's sleep, the ability to see, hear and think, to love, to be loved, to laugh, to smile, to eat, to walk. All the good things are free.

So what can you actually own? Most importantly you can own land (at least in countries that adopt Capitalism). But in the Old World like UK--where land usage has evolved over more than 10,000 years--ancient rights of way that existed before the system of Capitalism are protected. And a fundamental understanding exists that this country of UK, that this land ultimately belongs to us all.

If you think about a soldier being asked to fight for "his country" he might reasonable ask which bit? I mean if none of it belongs to me then why and I laying my life down for it? The country and the land is a much greater entity than the petty plots of land that its divided into. In England you can walk on permissible paths across the country and enjoy the full extent and breadth of this island and all the wildlife and landscapes are there to be appreciated. In Scotland you have a right to roam which respects this. How can a precious human actually just being somewhere ever be a crime. A crime only exists in damage or theft. This is a very ancient understanding and wisdom of land and people, that preceded Capitalism, that land belongs to Britons, just as Britons are named after this land, and the people are one, and as one we respect it.

You occasionally come across landowners who are under the mistaken belief that the land is really "theirs." We need only remind them that this land is only theirs because people died to protect their land from invasion, and as such they owe this land to them. If the dispute is over your right to be there, they may turn around and remind you that you have not risked your life for the land so "get off." But you can most probably say the same to them, that they haven't risked it in battle either. At best we are only ever stewards of the land, and after we are dead it passes on to other people for whom we should also have some regard. 

In the New World like US I believe they don't understand this. The land was robbed from its inhabitants who were all killed off, and so all traditional land use was eradicated and replaced with Capitalist plots. As a result no one has a relationship with the country or land that is deeper than the silly little plots. In the place of an ancient understanding of the land, the US has created "wilderness" parks, like Yosemite, that recreate a mythological romantic idea that the Americans have of the "land" before they invaded. But of course its a fiction because the land was inhabited by other humans that were genocided by European invaders who then set up Capitalism. When you see Bambi what you are looking at is a mythology that has been created to cover up the world's greatest land grab and genocide. The idea of "Wilderness" has a very, very dark history. In fact this false idea has destroyed the environmental movement and any hope of living with and respecting the planet like we used to.

So you can "own" a plot of land in order to get control of it, to landscape, build and make use decisions (within the bounds of the land-use law). But as a broad concept you cannot actually remove it from other people. The best you can do is build a huge fence around it so no one can see in, and obstruct any ancient pathways, but then you become a cut off patch on the landscape in which you have imprisoned yourself. No one can see in, but you cannot see out.

No matter how wonderful your world inside, when you build a wall around it, you become just a tiny spec in the land cut off from the greater Land. That wall becomes your prison. Reminds me very much of the 1624 Donne, Meditation 17.

No man is an island,

Entire of itself.

Each is a piece of the continent,

A part of the main.

If a clod be washed away by the sea,

Europe is the less.

As well as if a promontory were.

As well as if a manor of thine own

Or of thine friend's were.

Each man's death diminishes me,

For I am involved in mankind.

Therefore, send not to know

For whom the bell tolls,

It tolls for thee.

Like the sky, the land is actually vast, but this is forgotten by people who burrow into a small bit of the land and call their own.

But even in this world of property, a landowner gets very lonely without inviting friends and guests. So often people who do not own a property get to visit it. They can enjoy the senses of being there without owning.

And people get either tired and weary of owing in quite a quick time, so that they no longer appreciate what they own and take it for granted. Often needing to own something new to get the hit from owning again. This constant need for new things to own is the essence of the Environmental Crisis and why we need to work so much.

In actual fact you can live your whole life on this Earth without owning. The majority of humans through time have. The obsession with owning is a very new phenomenon. True you will be kicked off things, and excluded from things by the "owners", but this is a small inconvenience faced with the cornucopia of free things in life. Those people who own have a heavy weight around their necks, that quickly becomes a burden as the novelty of owning wears off.

They say this about boats, but its true for all things. There are two good times when owning. The day you buy something and the day you get rid of it.

And the biggest problem is that while experiencing something that you own, you realise its exactly the same as experiencing it when you don't own. Eating an apple you own and one you don't own is exactly the same experience. The difference is just paper work.

So yes its rules of the game, and we play the game to keep the peace. But its an illusion not to be taken any more seriously than a position in chess.

---

One problem with reactions to "property" is radical shake-ups. I believe Pol Pot in Cambodia had radical ideas to shake-up modern society and property. The problem with this is the belief that property is bad. If you think property is bad, then you've missed the point of everything above. Property is largely pointless, it is not bad. Property does a very good job of organising resources. I mean if you are planning a garden and every 5 minutes someone else comes along and changes it, it is going to be a mess. In more advanced societies than Capitalism this problem is solved by social organisation, and people rise to positions of respect and authority and they organise the collective resources. This is how our ancestors lived. But individual property is also a solution. But if you just smash up any system you end up with nothing. SO if we live in a system of property then so be it. But its important to realise that "owning" is not a big deal, and serves a very limited job, rather than the obsession some people have with it. Owning your "own" home for example seems to be a craziness is this part of the world.

What is Evil? Halloween.

In light of the previous post how massively we don't understand evil.

Hieronymus Bosch and a vision of Hell with all the vices and tortures and sufferings.

And Evil has very much become associated with vices and doing bad things. It's become very mixed up in neurotic ways of thinking, with private and hidden lusts and all manner of shadowy things.

Yet really it's all just the ignorance of believing in a self protected in a box we carry.

How can this be?

Even Buddhism speaks of Karma and Being Good. We sorry about doing bad things because of the suffering that it will cause in the future. And we do good things to gain the pleasant fruits in the future. Identical to Christianity and other religions where God will punish us for doing bad things.

But actually God will punish us for disobeying Him. For having an Ego that we dare to think is equal to God and for listening to that self rather than God. Isn't this the same?

And in fact karma is only basic training. It teaches us that suffering is caused, and it is caused by unwise actions. It teaches us to look inside and not blame other people. It makes us realise that the world is not the problem, it is just phenomena, the problem lies within us and how we deal with the world.

But how do we deal with suffering?

First off we don't understand suffering. Buddha died from a blood clot that killed part of his gut and caused a rupture a month later and he died in agony. Hardly a painless experience for the world's first (in recorded history) enlightened being. But he didn't suffer! That is the miracle.

He didn't suffer because there was no "outside" self being dragged kicking and screaming into the situation. There was just the experience. It wasn't happening to an observer who had tagged on for the experience, like a ghost in the shell, it was happening as Buddha.

Now cutting short for brevity. But Evil is simply all those things that stem from Ego and reinforce the idea of a separate self that has joined us for the ride. We like to think, as Dennett says, that we are in a cinema witnessing the world. And this leads us towards nice things. And when there are bad things we want to leave the cinema. This is inauthentic being. Life happens on a canvas in front of us. We need to immerse, be brave and be in life as it happens. Not as witnesses, but actually be Life itself. This is why Present Moment is so important. The Ego is barred from entering the Present Moment. We must put our Self down in order to Live*

* Another story available here where to enter paradise we must part with our most trusted companion - our self. 

Arguably when Jesus died on the Cross he put down his Ego. That is what died on the Cross. And he was reborn free from the entrapment of the world.

Does Jesus still live? Does Buddha still live? No they both died. But yes because they are beyond Ego now. This is why many religions ban images of God. That person on the cross is long dead. And so is Buddha. Buddha even says in the Diamond Sutra if you look for me in sights and sounds you have strayed from the path. Jesus and Buddha are Living and within us, not outside.

So as Halloween comes around how far from the point is the Pop version of Evil that we get today. Full of demonic creatures, undead, vampires, ghosts and murderous people. All these creatures have one thing in common they would not give up their false self and ego and live. Instead they prefer to hold on to the mortal solid tangible physical body and self and so perish in suffering. Pictures of evil are sad pictures of profound ignorance and stupidity. We need compassion for these beings and pray that we never become so deluded as to become them. Or better pray that given that we are all currently bound for the grave our self, we have the power to struggle to become the living and not the dead.

My favourite Buddhist passage:

The Destroyer brings under his sway the person of distracted mind who, insatiate in sense desires, only plucks the flowers (of pleasure). [Dhammapada 4:48] 

Feeling good and bad

Reblogging this to focus on the critical part.

So we feel bad. Usually we fight to bring this round and feel good. So we perhaps go jogging, or have a sleep, or eat some chocolate, or have a drink, or phone a friend, or watch a film, or read a book etc etc etc etc. Isn't this the structure of unenlightened life?

So we are enlightened and we feel bad. We look at how to bring this round and feel good again. So we perhaps go jogging, or have a sleep, or eat some chocolate, or have a drink, or phone a friend, or watch a film, or read a book etc etc etc etc. Isn't this the structure of enlightened life?

What is the difference?

Quickly an example of unenlightened. I overheard someone on holiday calling a friend and saying that they had been for a jog, been to gym, done yoga, meditated and then said  "I should be feeling much better than I am." This is the essence of the problem and thank you to them for putting it so clearly. Who matters what the feelings are? There are just feelings! Whether there is someone there to feel them changes nothing. So note what the problem was. She wasn't complaining that the feelings were not nice, she was complaining that she shouldn't be having those feelings. Great who should have then then? Someone else? The complaint is not over the nature of the feelings, but that they are here with "me." We are happy if we can just push them away, even to someone else. And in fact a huge amount of the bad things that people do is just trying to get away from unpleasant things, and in our panic to get rid of them we dump them on other people. But things are just what they are regardless whether they happen to me or not. If we had a bad feeling happening to us and a Buddha magically stopped it happening to us, how would it be different? It wouldn't, it would still be there, just not connected to us any more - which is the exact same.

I know someone who lost a parent recently and they are suffering very badly. So we all know the sadness at loss, and it can be overwhelming. I know the start of the blog includes this. It can suck the whole meaning of life out and leave you empty. But we absolutely should not confuse this quite natural response from the struggle to get away from it and wish it was not happening. In fact things just happen, they can be as sudden as a flash of lightening, but there is no denying that they happen. The sticking point is dragging this extra thing around that they must happen "to". If we think about it: by the time we know about something it has always already happened. So what else is there to do. It has happened and we now know about it. What remains to do? Well there is the natural process of mourning that this causes as the body and mind process the loss, miss the person, realise they will never (or until death or rebirth depending upon belief) see them again (certainly not in this form), recall precious memories and make new plans. Just a lot of rethinking and processing. This is all natural. But that is it, it all kicks off a new stream of experience and not necessarily an always pleasant one. But one anyway. The problem occurs when we try and resist this. This hidden "self" (that we think things happens to) somehow doesn't want to go on the journey. In fact the possibility of not going on the journey is only possible because we think there is a secret self inside our experiences. Armed with this belief we argue with experience that we aren't doing it. And that argument distracts us from what is really going on and messes us up.**

** There is a little story possible here of a Box that we are given it by the Devil who tell us to take it unopened to a destination, and we will die if we open it before arriving. All the way along the journey we will ignore many wonderful opportunities and don't really engage in the journey. At the end when we open the box we discover it was empty all along. Or it could be the box eventually gets smashed (dies) and we don't see that it was empty all along (important: empty of a solid thing that exists unchanged through time - perhaps better we put something like a frog/unicorn in the box as a kid and when it breaks decades later we see that the thing in there is long gone - it was not a permanent self). This is the unenlightened life. The enlightened life is when we open the box early (and die?)  and realise not to worry about any thing in the box. ***

*** This is possibly not helpful cos how do we actually "open the box", what is the metaphor? That is the hard bit. Buddha taught the 8 Fold Noble Path to lead us up to the point of opening the box, but we must walk this our self, no one can do this for us. And the nature of opening the box is unlike anything we have experienced before. It is complete revelation of the most deeply seated assumptions that we never even knew we take for granted. Realising the sound of the machine in The Machine Stops, except it is the opposite: realising that something we always thought was there is not there. But because its always there we don't even notice it. So its realising that the self that we assume is everywhere, is firstly everywhere and then that it doesn't even exist (as an unchanging solid entity that is the same through time and our whole life).

Anyway, returning to the original thread: the unenlightened person sees the "bad" as part of themselves. The badness has breached the castle walls and is inside and is "their's"; it somehow affects a person called "them". It means they have no choice but to act on it. The problem stops being just about feeling bad, and becomes about "me". Bad feelings exist, no great issue there. But when it become "my" bad then we are compelled automatically to deal with it and get it away.

The enlightened person just sees the bad feeling. Its a feeling like any other. No big deal. Because the feeling does not belong to any one, its just what it is, no one is dragged into it automatically.

The result may well be the same like go and watch a movie, but the unenlightened person is running from the bad feeling to get it as far away from them self as possible. For the enlightened person because there is no one involved there is no running to do. Who is there to actually run? The bad feeling exists without reference to a centre, the universe is infinite with space for everything, rather than it all crowding in on some some centre, around some "person". We are just the air of experience, rather than a tree standing in the middle with things happening to it. If the enlightened person fixes the bad feeling by a watching film then great. If they fail and the feeling is still there then so be it. Obviously a tough emotion or problem. But so be it. Ultimately the enlightened person can just sit there and watch the feeling for what it is without there being anyone for it affect.

Its an interesting thing that the actual phenomenon is identical for both the enlightened and the unenlightened. The Buddhas experience the exact same world as the unenlightened. Things happen. And we don't have much control over those things. This is the way of the world, better deal with that as we find it cos that IS reality. The difference is only that the unenlightened put the "near world" into the Dative case so that it is happening to someone, that person being them. Its as subtle a compulsion as a tense change. Buddha says non-self (anatta) but the problem with that is it actually uses the problem in the remedy. Fixed-Self is the problem, and while saying "not that" that we have directed the listener to the problem. Buddha actually says that ALL phenomena are "not self." So we look around and we are being told that absolutely NONE of that is us. Heidegger uses the German word Dasein which means "there being" or "being over there." This over-thereness of the world is what proves its "not self" its always over there. A tree is clearly "over there" especially if someone else is standing under it. But even when we are standing under it, it is still over there but now a few centimetres rather than metres. Even the phenomenon of a feeling which we can't locate "in the world" (you can't stand under a feeling) is still "over there" just in a different not physical space. The fact we can't physically walk away from a bad feeling makes it feel closer, and people try other displacement activities to try and block out bad feelings. But it is still just a phenomenon that is coming at us and so is over there. Its important to note that even in the midst of the worst crisis that it has not been around forever, and just as it has occurred it will "unoccur" and we will be left alone again. All things comes to us, and then leave (if we let them).

Now there I am using the "coming at us" experience to illustrate Buddha's "not us" and over there. All things are coming at us. But in there lies the other problem. Because if we change the focus, even just slightly from the "coming at" experience to the "us" then we have slipped back into "atta" or fixed self. It's quite possible for a wind to blow through a landscape and be blowing in on ever point without us picking a particular point or tree in that landscape for it to be affecting. When we take our experiences and place a tree at the centre then we holding on to the notion of a "fixed self" and that is the whole problem of life.

It's a subtle thing. For the enlightened things still happen to them obviously, but the emphasis is all on the "happening". For the unenlightened the emphasis is all on the "them"

It means that other bad things that happen to other people may gain more relevance and we might invite someone to the cinema to help them just as we tried with our self.

===

Here's a thought. Assume there is a fixed self. Since everything in our whole life must happen to that fixed self, and there can never be an experience without it can't we just factor it out of all experiences?

The Psychology of Conspiracy Theorists

The first thing to note about "Conspiracy Theories" is that they are invariably American.

Within the "Conspiracy Theory" mindset the belief is that "Conspiracy" is applied to a theory by the establishment if that theory is critical of the establishment so as to invalidate it. But that doesn't explain why this way of thinking is American.

Take UFO sightings. I have seen a UFO in Italy so not speaking from a perspective of disbelief. But there are anomalies. UFOs you might expect to show up randomly across the globe. But the vast majority of reports come from America and a secondly Europe. 

[source: https://web.archive.org/web/20051231121342/http://www.larryhatch.net/]

Even in Europe the distribution is uneven:   

UFOs (whatever they are) do not occur at random. They appear to be linked to territories. Now why that should be who knows, but it means that UFOs do obey Earthly territories which seems highly unlikely if they are Extra-terrestrials as many believe.. I mean they are "extra" terrestrial! It could be for example that exposure to the culture in certain territories makes people more likely to see them. My sighting was possibly linked to recently having seen the film "Close Encounters of the Third Kind".

So the way we think and see does seem to show some relationship with where we are. Does being American or coming into contact with American thinking making you more susceptible to Conspiracy Theory?

Now the most important thing about America is its history especially the American Revolution. Much is said about French, Russian and Chinese Revolutions but the American Revolution came first. And it bought America its freedom from the British Empire, with the help of the French. This is why the Statue of Liberty is French. France and America were both celebrating the victory of the Americans over France's old enemy Britain and the victory of Liberty over the "ancien régimes." In fact French support for the US was a precursor to the Napoleonic Wars. Indeed without French support the US Revolution would never have happened. Its interesting from a British perspective that Napoleon and America are one and the same. And some would say they both went from aspirations of liberty to eventual dictatorship.

Anyway the US mindset follows this Revolutionary thinking and is very much one opposed to overseas government, and even after the civil war their own government. Increasingly extreme ideas of Liberty is everything. The fact that the US celebrates a 20 year period of anarchy where the Wild West escaped control by Washington says a lot about the New World.

In a nutshell all Conspiracies stem from distrust of some establishment.

But its not just normal distrust, it must be a swing from total blind acceptance to total enlightened rejection. For me it was the film JFK that did it. David Ferrie's discussion with Jim Garrison is the point for me when it goes from a cop show and a detective searching for a bad man, to realising its systemic. The system did him in. "Don't you get it" Ferrie says.. well no I didn't, not up to that point.

You get the exact same thing in Jack the Ripper realised 3 years before JFK. Sherlock Holmes is investigating the Jack the Ripper murders. Its all detective work, and you think no one can elude the famous Holmes. Well what gets him is finding out that the murders were done to protect Edward VII. In other words the very establishment that Holmes seeks to protect came together to do the murders. He is forced to drop the case.

So its not just distrust of an establishment, I mean no one is interested in the idea the Nazis were collectively bad. No revelation there. It must be that the system that you once felt part of is bad. Its that moment when a once faithful Nazi realises the system they supported and championed actually stands against everything the believe.

So Conspiracy is actually a kind of alienation where you feel you no longer belong. But unlike the psychiatric condition where the individual faces a separation from the world around them, it becomes a collective experience as people see solidarity with other alienated people. Its a togetherness in all being outsiders.

In fact its a negation of establishment. Unlike the individual facing alienation all those people previously connected by faith in an establishment, now become connected by rejecting that establishment. They are still joined by the establishment, just negative now instead of positive. This actually gives us deep insight into human feelings. We like being connected by a cause or by an establishment, so even when we reject that establishment we keep the solidarity and connection. If you want to control people you can either get them to support you, or you can get them to reject something they hold in common.

To really blow the mind of the Conspiracy Theories, one might suggest that the very collective that they have found in sharing distrust of an establishment is itself just a new establishment.

In fact that is my belief. Conspiracy Theories were created as psyops by foreign powers like Russia or China to internally rot the West, or they were created by the West to distract people from the actual truth. In either case belong to a conspiracy mindset is actually a very dangerous piece of brainwashing that strips you of your freedom.

Indeed this must be true. True freedom is not something you can gain by joining a collective to overthrow another collective. That is just war.

Now who is "The Establishment" that Conspiracy Theorists are unified against? Well its not clear. It is sufficient just to have a "them" to hate.

Take the Moon Landing Conspiracy. Its not enough just to say that the moon landing were faked. Well perhaps they were. We know the Piltdown Man was faked, but no one cares. The point is "who did the fake?", and for the Moon Landings to be faked it must be a very powerful group. And it is that powerful group this is really the interest behind suggestions of the moon landings being fakes. Who is powerful enough to do much a thing. Perhaps they are faking other things? Suddenly the certainty we had dissolves in doubt. If we throw ourselves into that doubt then we are a conspiracy theorist.

Every conspiracy theorist says the same thing. I used to trust these people, now I have no trust.

A common enemy on the web is the Democrats. Which points immediately to US sources. Other enemies are aliens, satanic paedophile cabals, Jews, foreigners, Capitalists. Anyone in fact who is different from oneself.

To be a really successful Conspiracy theory it must involve the flip from a group we once belonged to and trusted, to realising we don't. So the essence of the mental process is for example that we thought "our government" was "ours" until we realise it is overrun with Jews who are not us. Then we flip and find ourselves outside the group.

Now given the blogs recent focus on "self" we have a good insight into why this is happening more these days. If one thinks that millions of people laid their lives down for government and country in the Past without alienation and now fewer and fewer people can think like this, something has changed. And that is to do with "self."

Under recent Modern Western thinking the atom of society is the "self" and this is both indivisible and sufficient. That is a self needs no one else, and cannot be split into anything else. Thinking like this Western people have a growing strong attachment to them self as something solid in an otherwise uncertain world. As a result it is literally just a matter of time before Modern Selves cannot find any home in a group.

But its ironic. The truth obviously is that selves exist in communities. But the Modern Self cannot accept this because it contradicts the idea of the solid self-existing self. So the solution is to think we are a solid self, but also form a collective with other solid selves (who we don't need) but who share our belief in false, fake groups.

This the conspiracy theorist is not interested in any evidence or truth (I can confirm this from exploring the issue) and will not be swayed by even the most obvious evidence that they are wrong, because the goal is simply to gain solidarity with people who reject groups because they are fake, false and corrupted establishments. And all such people need to signal to each other is that the do not trust the "establishment" (whatever the "establishment" actually is).

So its an interesting phenomenon, but one very much predictable from the path of the Capitalist self.

Unfortunately Buddha noted 2600 years ago that this way of thinking is the cause of suffering. So the lives of people who believe in the solid indivisible, self reliant and existing self, are lives of growing suffering. But obviously that suffering is all due to the "establishment" and the "group" that they are united in rejecting.

And returning to the top, the reason that most conspiracy theorists are American or have been influence by America is that America is also committed to this idea of the solid self.

===

An typical example of US thinking was to be seen on EarthX TV last night. An American was presenting solutions to the environmental catastrophe in America. And he was arguing
(1) that Private Farmers were the solution.

But then also then arguing for

(2) how to incentivise them to protect the environment.

In other words he was saying that "private" farmers by themselves (1) would not protect the environment. In which case they are problem not the solution surely?

Surely all he needed to say was that farmers needed to be given financial incentives to protect the environment. Where did the "private" come into the debate?

Well its obviously this US cultural hatred and distrust of government. What he was actually saying is that the government should take over the issue and protect the environment cos farmers were not doing that. But the US brain is so unable to deal with the idea of something other than a "solid self" that it feels the need to reframe what it is saying in terms that base it upon a "solid" or "private" self. In fact this is completely irrelevant, and serves only to meet the dogmatic obsession of Americans.

In actual fact the real answer if for all farmland to privatised and run by the government and do away with private enterprise all together, but this is so anathema to American thinking they would short circuit if they ever tried to process that thought.

Neil Oliver going down the "Us vs Them" or "Social vs Individual" drain

Definitely forming an opinion here. Had issue with this video.

It seems there is this growing naïve view of individuals which ignores the way they interact. Most "individuals" for example in the West think and construct their thoughts in English. So does English belong to any individual or is it a community property that is shared by all? To even think that is to go beyond being an individual - who are you thinking it for? If you went to an alien planet and found just one person speaking you would know already there must be other people for them to talk to (this is the essence of the Private Language arguments).

Just as a wall is made of bricks, if a society had no use for walls then it wouldn't make bricks. Many societies don't. If no one ever wanted a wall then no one would ever have invented or made a brick, indeed the mother of invention is not the individual but the community need. I'm pretty sure some Neanderthal put some clay in a fire and saw it harden, but with no use for it, it was over looked. That was not yet a "brick". Bricks need walls as much as walls need bricks. They cannot exist without each other. If you landed on a distant planet and found a single brick you would already know they had walls! You find a single "individual" and you already know they came from the society.

And so it goes for individuals in societies. Most obviously without parents--to give birth to us--and our family--to give birth to them--we physically would not exist, but there are all the other people whose work makes our life possible - food producers, organisers, fuel producers. We are fundamentally connected as "One, but we are not the same" as Bono sings. Its neither Individual vs Society, nor as Americans like to argue Collectivism vs Individualism - they go together as different sides of the same coin. Americans (as a society!) like to think a coin has either a Head or a Tail side; for some reason they cannot see that it must have both at the same time. A society without individuals is nothing, and individuals without a society are nothing. You have Americans like Ayn Rand literally not understanding this, or is it that only in American Society would she have risen to prominence? She felt she was not taken seriously in her home country of Russia so she moved to America. In other parts of the world that do understand this she has not been taken seriously, much to the chagrin of Americans.

Ah ha say the Survivalists. But I can live on my own off nature without anyone. Well really? You just used English to express that. You got that from a society. So you must stop thinking in English. How did you find out what to eat? Forget all that knowledge you were given by society. You need to go around trying to eat everything again to find out what is good and not good. You need forget about fire, not just how to make it, but that it even exists. That was shown to you by other people. Forget about cooking and recipes, you are back to eating raw food until you discover it for yourself. Forget about clothes, they were invented and shown to you by other people. You need to get a bang over the head so you forget literally everything and wake up naked on a beach, dumb and clueless. You will survive a few days longer than a baby, just because you have more body mass which, note, you amassed from your society. This is how we are fundamentally linked to a society and unable to survive without it just as a fish without water or us without air. But then you owe your parents for giving birth to you, so you vanish anyway and never existed without a family, other people and society.

I spent many months in a tent thinking about this. The problem with "going it alone" in a tent, is the tent. What a remarkable object that is, combining centuries of knowledge about materials and design. Consider even the process of weaving fibres that goes back millennia. And even the "tent" idea is inspired by a culture going all the way back to Mesolithic when people first started living in makeshift animal skin shelters. And even if we did scrap the modern tent and go back to mesolithic living, even they lived in societies with knowledge on how to do all this stuff handed down generation to generation. Survivalists find it hard enough to exist on their own with all the materials and knowledge of a huge industrial society like guns and explosives. How much harder with just sticks and stones. That requires real skill and knowledge that has largely been forgotten today because that society has gone!

There is an ancient distinction between Logos and Mythos. You can read logos in a book. But cycling a bicycle is handed down in a culture, it is like mythos. No one learned riding a bicycle from a book. Many people from different cultures don't even know what a bicycle is. Some cultures don't even have the idea of a wheel, or the culture and practice to make one. So when we find books from ancient cultures, its actually impossible to make sense of all the symbols without a continuous transmission of the mythos to us as readers which gives us a chance of decoding them. We assume for example that the texts will contain references to food and food production, using what we know of that to help us interpret it.

So a human individual cannot live without a society. But there is no single society, they are all different with subcultures. So it means that "society" is not one thing, any more than an individual is one thing. You pick an individual at random and you can pretty much tell which type of society they came from.

So once we see how individuals form society, and society forms individuals then we see how leaders and the led are fundamentally linked. And now my favourite graphic:

Anyway my comment to Neil Oliver is here...

"Not sure I completely agree.

[In answer to the claim that Utopian ideologies are responsible for the greatest massacres]

1st off the greatest loss of life has been the Imperial wars of Capitalism which include WW1, WW2, Vietnam and the British Empire and the land clearances and genocides of native peoples throughout the New World to make way for Capitalist farming, including more recently for example the 1943 Bengal Famine not incomparable with the Holocaust and occurring at the same time (and perhaps for the same reasons.) And of course the 300 years of Capitalist Atlantic Slave Trade to supply slaves to build America. Capitalism has killed 100s of millions. And that ignores the impact of unscrupulous marketing for profit of harmful products like cigarettes which are responsible for a billion deaths, and cars whose pollution is responsible for millions of deaths a year. In Capitalism profit is always put before welfare. Plus worth noting that the figures banded around regarding opponents of Imperialism like Russian and Chinese Revolutions and completely made up by Washington. How did the Pentagon come up with 20 million and 45 million, or even 6 million for the Holocaust? Even the Jews realise that the full figure of 11 million was just double the 6 million minus one. All these figures are literally plucked from a hat for political propaganda. If we are playing that game then the US genocide of Native Indians was 10 million, and WW1 and 2 was 100 million. I posted a few days ago the odd fact that the Chinese population was exploding at the time of these supposed famines and mass starvation. In the world of propaganda nothing is reliable (especially Imperialist propaganda)! It can be seen here clues that Neil Oliver is not waking up to a truth, but rather has finally swapped truth for the efforts of Washington at brainwashing and whitewashing their Empire.

[In answer to incredulity about sacrifice]

Regarding sacrifice there is a pattern. I was told by a Malaysian quantity surveyor that traditionally in Malaysia they would sacrifice a builder when building a bridge and bury the head in the foundations to appease the water spirits (that is Sandy from Monkey). Obviously I enquired whether she still acquired heads for her construction projects! These head hunting spirits are blood thirsty and regularly drown people, so it makes sense if you want to control the world, you give them what they want ahead of time to protect yourself. So bridges had sacrifices built in to them to make them safer. Ancient construction safety regulations. Perfectly logical.

In a world of crippling infant mortality you might for example sacrifice your 1st born to appease the blood thirsty gods and protect your future children as was the practice in the Middle East. So child sacrifice to Baal was actually quite logical. And even in harmless Buddhism, Tibetan monks would sacrifice themselves to protect communities - perhaps to appease spirits or perhaps to become spirits or perhaps to take karma on oneself. Most famously Jesus made a self-sacrifice taking the sins of the world on his shoulders. And today we have soldiers committing self sacrifice, and leaders committing sacrifice of soldiers supposedly to protect people in the exact same way. So sacrifice makes perfect sense even within modern thinking as a way of protecting the community. Which leads to the next bit.

Communities are much more holistic than Neil Oliver suggests. For example Master/Slave Dialectic from Hegel. Kings need subjects and subjects need kings - they work together. No kings and then the subjects are in disarray, no subjects and the king does not exist. So the reason subjects adopt kings is usually like the Restoration of the Monarchy. The Nash Equilibrium, or Social Contract, where everyone gives up a bit of freedom to a king in order to stop in-fighting amongst themselves. When civil wars break out, people eventually solve it by agreeing on a leader - this is exactly how the Inca would have occurred in the 1st place. We look at violent leaders and wish they were not there, we don't see the violence that would be transferred to us if those leaders were not there

Often like with 1066 in England we see the oppression of vanquished by an invading force. Or much more famously we see a tribe like the Jews get taken into captivity as happened with the Babylonians or the Egyptians or as happened with the Africans and the Capitalists during the 300 years of Atlantic Slave Trade (which incidentally is how the US grew to be a super power, nothing to do with Adam Smith's economics). But this is all very one sided, because dig a little deeper and the boundaries blur. The Saxon invasion of Britain was actually started by a Celtic tribe enlisting the help of Saxons fighters against a neighbouring tribe. Divide & Rule is not oppressive, it works within existing fractures within society. Native conflicts and desires simple become enveloped within the culture of the invading people. Its unfair to say that colonised countries want to be rules from overseas, but the arising of powerful overseas leaders is a spontaneous product of the same forces that led to them having kings in the first place. Modern Capitalist US ideas of "freedom" really are a naïve nonsense.   

It may look brutal, but to be a stable system it can't be more brutal than the violence that would break out without a leader. We just need look at the violence that broke out in Iraq after its ruling class was brutally executed by the Americans. 1000x worse than Saddam Hussein. This is why people tolerate strong leaders. But if the leaders are more brutal than the violence of civil war then people would spontaneously just abandon their kings and the kings would not even exist, until Restoration anyway as always seems to happen when people realise that a strong leaders is preferable to civil war and mafias.

As King Cnut illustrated: he had no divine power over the waves, it was ALL invested in him by his subjects. So while individuals (particularly modern capitalist individuals) like to see everything as coming from inside themselves, they overlook how much is given to them from outside by history and culture. When we find ourselves born into a world of Inca we forget how it all started, and why we all work together to create a society structured like this.

As a hypothesis it would make sense that tribal warfare in South America must have been brutal for their societies to evolve like they did. But "brutal" also means something else because mortality rates, and the brutal side of random nature would have been much more apparent to these people. A leader making a sacrifice every week would have made perfect sense when you had already lost half your family through infant mortality and disease caused--so you can best fathom--by the harsh and angry beings of nature.

So anyway think there might be other ways to see all this?"