jASON: Lousy smarch weather

i: Yay! smarch

It's actually quite nice here today

j: It's ok here too

i: Feels like a new season

j: No tornados

i: God bless 'em

How's your week been?

j: Average week

Better than bad

i: haha

ditt

o

j: ooooo

i: Alright then, this all leads us perfectly into the collective unconscious. Which led me to a question thinking about it on the drive home tonight. By raising the collective unconscious card, aren't you implying and underlying interconnectivity to everything? Hmm!

j: Well

Let's start with an example

i: No well!

k

j: One night you're laying in bed thinking, and you think ov some old obscure tv show that you haven't thought about in ages

For no reason, it just pops into your head and you think about it a minute. Then at work the next day, a co-worker asks you "Hey- do you remember that old tv show?", and you talk about it. Then, you're watching tv and a comedian references it in a joke. Then, you see it's coming out on dvd.

This happens with all kinds ov stuff- pop culture references, slang, memories, etc

i: Ahh. I get it. You know those BIG square and round sunglasses? Those come from the collective unconscious.

Everyone just started wearing them all of the sudden.

j: Exactly!

i: Or was that peer pressure and the spice girl's fault?

j: And I’ve noticed that cleavage is 'in' now.

i: But is it the sexy cleavage, or the unsexy cleavage?

j: And furry jackets were in when it was cold.

Where does this all come from?

i: member 'north face';

j: and wrestling t-shirts

i: But does each person only tap into a portion of or particular place in the collective unconscious? For instance I wouldn't think of John Wayne movies and find them arriving all over the place in my day to day activities. But maybe a 70 year old would. How does this relate to coincidences, word of mouth, six degrees of separation, etc?

Let me give an example:

I was talking online one night with Cristina. In our conversation I mentioned the factories in New Jersey that manufacture 'flavor'. She didn't comment on or give any indication that she had paid any special attention to it. Then a few weeks later I was reading her friends LiveJournal entry and she mentioned the flavor manufacturing factory. Seeing how that played out, it's possible her friends read about it, found it interesting and passed it on as well. To what extent do things like this happen that we don't even recognize?

j: So you think it's not collectively unconscious- that people see it and register it but don't notice it, and pass it on to others?

i: Some of it. I believe very much in the possibility and feasibility of the collective unconscious, I just think we need to delineate the differences. Or decide whether the collective unconscious incorporates all of those other 'descriptions' we have for 'connected events'.

If there is a collective unconscious, I would describe it as the plane of thoughts and ideas, and the possibilities within that plane. In a very broad way it shapes the 'perception' frame for millions of humans at the same or 'close' times. This causes certain shifts in attitudes or understanding of events. Like the way kids today text like nobody's business. It's almost built in. What we spent hours acquiring the skill for, passed on to them in the collective unconscious as a natural ability.

j: But somehow not the skill to text and drive at the same time.

i: laughs

What causes the shifts in attention and attitudes towards certain things and in certain directions. I don't know. It may be a tipping point. Where once enough people have thought of something a certain way, it becomes commonplace in the mind.

j: Hence the rise in automotive accidents.

i: Whereas I have that (texting and driving) skill

But not enough people have it yet to pass it on to others.

j: That's too bad.

i: I think celebrities may have much more clout than we realize. And politicians too. The president could tomorrow say 'we're leaving Iraq'. we've decided to forgive terrorists and seek reconciliation through dialogue and understanding and changing our policies. And that would cause a huge shift in the collective perception. It would then be almost immediately conscious!

Because there are many followers and few leaders

The followers aren't bad. It's just their apparent approach to living.

Temperament tests allude to this. The set amount of 'types of people. and the most prevalent type are the people that go with the flow.

j: Do you think that the illuminati, or the 3% ov people who own everything, have a collective unconscious machine

?

"We're putting out season one ov this oollldddd tv show- fire up the collective unconscious machine and make everyone think about it."

i: Sure. They're probably the ones directing many of the events and shifts. But I don't think they have total control either.

Think of TV as another example. It's like a magic train that orders your thoughts. That's why people love it. Music too. Images more so. So when images are portrayed a certain number of times, that definitely enters the collective unconscious. Like Coke! Or even taxes.

j: h.a.a.r.p.!

i: laughs

HAARP doesn't control me!

I think my own thoughts!

Or is that what HAARP is telling me!!!

j: (cut to a picture ov a guy at h.a.a.r.p. with a computer on which he just typed "h.a.a.r.p. don't control me! I think my own thoughts!"

i: Who tells the haarp controller what to think?

j: the double secret h.a.a.r.p.

i: What kind of thoughts would you have to have to have the desire to tell others what to think?

Thoughts of control

What are thoughts of control?

Can you think of examples?

j: "If I controlled everything, things would be better"

i: That's a good one. But why does the 'if' equate with the 'would'. How are we sure? Where do we derive our certainty?

j: From parents

That's parents whole thing.

Most everyone had parents, who controlled them.

i: So what would a child who grew up with no parents... what would that child think?

Would her will be more 'free'?

j: Well they probably had someone who controlled them.

i: can you think of a situation without external control? Or does the environment dictate certain controls that we learn from and transfer to our children. "Hard lessons learned."

j: And our pets

Even our friends

We try to make things good or better for those around us by trying to control environment.

influence

situations

i: What do you think about the 'old brain' that is tied to the memories of being eaten by dinosaurs and survival being an utterly terrorizing ordeal... do you think that's playing a role in current or shaping future collective 'unconscious'... and did the 'new brain' evolve out of that? and how? How could a transcendent brain evolve out of something inherently the opposite?

j: erm

You know ov course that humans and dinosaurs existed millions ov years apart from each other, right?

hahaha

i: well according to evolution

j: "this conversation is over!"

i: laughing

j: But

The reptilian mind

Brain stem

I think it influences our dreams

i: How so.

j: Most people have dreams on occasion ov being stalked by an inhuman predator.

That might be collective unconscious memories.

i: Do you think that questions regarding the collective unconscious, and to be blunt, anything for that matter, mean anything without first possessing a foundation of understanding of the purpose of life? I know it's popular to claim the purpose of life is inherent - it's to live - and another popular one is that the purpose is to create purpose... but setting those aside for the sake of contemplation, and keeping an open mind. Do you think at some level, there is an awareness and understanding of the truest form and purpose of life?

j: Do you mean all life

or human beings

i: All life

j: Do oysters contemplate the meaning ov life?

or do they just live it

do it

i: Including the 'context' human beings add to the equation. what with our language and ability to create, verbalize, and share thoughts.

But this is the question. Meaning. What is it. Is it arbitrary? That seems to be the standard quo, but if it is, then no one can complain when people die or bad things happen they don't like.

There's a giant contradiction rift in the consciousness is what I'm getting at.

j: If life has a meaning

all life?

i: And I say that with moral impunity

j: A certain meaning that we haven't discovered or at least haven't decided collectively and agreed upon?

Do you think an oyster and a human have the same meaning?

The same ultimate goals?

i: That's precisely the question I'm getting at. You put it perfectly. The question is. What is the meaning of the oyster and the human in relation to each other. And each thing in relation to each other. It's not as if nothing works together. Rather, everything works together in a sort of closed system, but we claim or suppose it has no meaning - no purpose.

j: That's true- that's the main argument ov environmentalists as well.

That if a seemingly insignificant species went extinct, it could (and probably will) influence us all.

Even if we can't see how we relate.

i: Yes. And in other words, does it have to work the way it does? And if it does, then what's the point in our trying to make it more 'perfect'?

j: Some would say that it's already perfect, and the best thing we can do is try not to influence or change it much.

i: But then that raises the question of our inherent involvement, our participation in the perfection. Which leads one to question their purpose. What they're supposed to do. Of course, I contend there's nothing we're supposed to do. But I would say that society and the collective unconscious, influenced by it very much, create a force that pushes the mind and the feeling into the direction that there is something everyone is supposed to be doing. A part they're supposed to be playing. Most materially put in the idea of 'success', or achieving the American Dream.

j: So

Since we don't see oysters watching game shows and playing with ipods

we're to assume

that perhaps the human race has become distracted from the true meaning?

i: Yes. At least in the sense that everything we can create is taken from nature. Modified, through chemical alterations, into forms we first think in our minds and then shape the physical matter into. These actualize our meanings into our physical reality, and it feels good, but it distracts from the question of the purpose of nature and our participation in the first place. And whether we are aware -and to what extent - of our relation to nature. I don't contend that there is any meaning, that if not realized, would cause the world to suffer an irreversible fate. Rather. We keep ourselves out of a 'heaven' per se, because we refuse to address the question, that if answered would allow us to enter this 'place of perfection' that everyone is so adamantly seeking.

The biggest question this raises, is a moral/ethical one. Which is of relation to each other.

Because all discord is caused by conflicting desires. So my meaning compared to yours - right vs. wrong.. you can't have it because it will keep me from having it... they're not enough to go around (environmentalism)... etc

j: Do you think that the true meaning will resonate so strongly, and be so powerful and irrefutable, that when it is discovered, if broadcast properly, everyone will recognize it for what it is?

i: yes

yes

yes

and

yes

j: So

why haven't we stumbled upon it yet?

It must not be any ov the religions we've had so far.

Maybe pieces ov each?

Like an unfinished puzzle.

i: It's probably not possible to stumble across it. I agree it's not fully in any of the religions we've had.... but everyone has small pieces, which is where the religion probably started with good purpose and intent, but for the sake of transferring it in times when there was no writing, it was turned into ritual and turned into something that was therefore to be practiced, but inadvertently ceased to be understood.

That is - it lost its meaning... but the practice/ritual remained.

Of course the meaning isn't ever truly lost. We just forgot it somewhere. I think the further back in history you go, the more aware people were of this. The closer they were to this all encompassing perception of absolute perfection, which is why so many religions and their meanings are so old.

The problem is, that since we've lost or forgot the meanings.. we have to create new 'religions', or choose a different word to describe what it is we need to create the remembrance of.

j: And don't forget the corruption.

People adding their own, selfish and personal influences.

i: But I would say that that at its very nature is part of the perfection. It's just that people, again, think they have to harm others or manipulate situations or people in order to prevent them from getting good and to guarantee as best as possible that they will secure what it is they're desiring.

Why that perception arose is pretty easy to see.

We identify with external objects. If we grant them any meaning, then there is only 'so much', so many of them to go around.

It's like this bowl I have on my table. If I think it's the best bowl in the world, perfect in every respect (or all the respects that I want it to be) and others are convinced of the same, and they want that perfection, then everyone will want the one bowl. Not a replica, and then there will only be so much to go around. Only 1 bowl that only 1 person can own.

We put the meaning in the bowl.

That is not to say that there is not a superior meaning. That is where I say the bowl exists in the first place. The matter behind the shape of the bowl. Not the bowl itself. And then, not even the matter itself. Since matter doesn't exist. Just energy

j: But everyone knows that things like belief and knowledge are infinite- there’s plenty to go around.

i: But yet, we guard knowledge. look at the White House.

Publicly Traded companies wouldn't share with you information on what their earnings will be before they publicly state them. It gives an advantage to have that knowledge. So of course, knowledge is guarded. And it is used with amazing effect. The war in Iraq was sold with words.

Knowledge is power, but power is the opposite of the perfection I believe summarily exists.

j: But not because ov the knowledge, per se, but because ov what people can get with that knowledge.

i: Yes. And if the case is that the person who has the knowledge can get material possessions in excess enough to distract them from the problems they face, or to temporarily satisfy them so they can be relieved of the pain that not possessing true understanding results in, then the person will continue to try to amass knowledge, to continue this cycle.

Until one day, hopefully, they realize it never ends.

Countless success stories elaborate this point. All the money and power in the world can't buy happiness.

But happiness is what everyone wants.

j: oh i beg to differ!

i: lasting

lets say

lasting happiness

j: hahaha

i: Everyone thinks about these things, every single day. But there is no social, collective, avenue of expression. It is deemed, at some point, to be an individual problem. Usually at the onset of puberty.

j: Well

If a genie popped up

and said "would you rather be happy or rich?"

most people would say happy.

i think

i: I think so too. But probably because they only want to be rich because they want to be happy. They think that richness or more control will lead to happiness. And it's impossible to blame anyone for making this - fundamentally faulty as it may be - connection.

j: Well

Money makes things easier

More convenient

And people believe that will at least make them be able to concentrate on happiness more.

i: At times.

Money and things have made my life less easy. I work more to get more money to keep a car maintained. So I can drive it work.

j: So you need more money!

i: laughing

It's a closed loop.

We don't see it, because we're in the loop.

We imagine there are things outside the loop. But we're stuck in the loop.

Or a well if that suits you visually. You can see the sky from down there.

j: I guess it's when you get above a certain point

if you're at the point to where you're worried about your car, or computer, or ipod, then you're above the point I’m talking about

where you're worried about eating.

i: Yes. I tend to think that people though, who are at a level where the basic necessities are the hardest to come by, they're the closest to understanding the true meaning of life. Of course there are exceptions. People who become bitter at this level. because being at that level calls into question the meaning of life. But even the further up you go, the same question can grow in depth. Because the more you have, the more you can ask "what's the purpose of this?"

A basic question is 'what's the purpose of having no food' There is none, given the fact that you are alive in a human body that requires it in order for you to remain connected to that body. So the contradiction is laid bare, and you see a small bit of the original purpose.

j: That's one way ov looking at it.

But it could also be said that the reason that we haven't discovered the true meaning ov life (if there is one) so far, is because we've just recently came into a time when most people aren't mainly concerned with starving to death, and therefore unable to ponder much else.

i: I think entirely the opposite. Again, the very texts that we use to teach philosophy and meaning in our modern day education system, were written by individuals alive hundreds to thousands of years ago. The further you go back, the more meaning you find. If you can see it. If you're looking at it the right way. Otherwise you just see the contradictions everywhere... and the generally accepted conclusion that even with all the historic texts, that the true meaning of life hasn't been discovered.

j: Maybe it was burned by the Christians in the library of Alexandria.

And other parts taught by those same Christians.

How ironic.

i: Parts of it probably were. But the reason it hasn't been discovered in the sense that we expect it should be, is because no one person can discover it. It is a collective meaning, therefore the collective has to state it.

But the conclusions that the old texts arrived at were based on self reflection, and axioms, and principles that didn't involve microscopes and telescopes that allow the human senses to go beyond the surface level. The modern day scientific equipment, while in some ways shedding light on the total truth, has simultaneously greatly convoluted it.

j: And back then they had no way ov broadcasting on a worldly level.

i: Right. And nowadays we do, but look what we use the internet, TV, and radio for! Entertainment. Movies are probably closer to helping us, because they can convey story, but they're used to tell stupid stories quite frankly.

But it makes sense because we have a jumbled mess of what we call 'meaning'.

There's no agreement, so we create many things that don't agree.

If we start with the aim of creating agreement, or realizing what must be agreed upon, we take the first step on the path to understanding everything absolutely.

I can tell you quite pointedly what the first step to realizing the true meaning of life is.

that is if you're interested

j: Muslims vs. Christians

i: your humor plays a big role!

j: hahaha

ok

i: :D

j: let's hear it

i: At the most fundamental level. The distribution of the physical and/or the transfer of the intellectual ability to grow and maintain sustenance. The starving must be fed. The pentagon can predict wars. There are 3 indicators. 1 is child mortality rate. The 2nd is Access to Markets. And the 3rd is the people's access to their government - and the government's subsequent response.

Child mortality Rate and access to markets are tied. When mothers and fathers start losing their children, things deteriorate 2/3rds... if the mother and father cannot get the government to do anything to solve the situation (multiply this by thousands/millions of families) a war erupts.

People must be fed in order to survive. Its such a simple given that we take for extreme granted in the united states. And the state of the world, is intertwined with 3rd world economies, even if we ignore it and say it isn't so because we're the superpower.

The second fundamental requirement is shelter.

j: Health care?

i: Essentially, the basic needs of all humans must be met first, before the actual everything covering - all inclusive - indisputable meaning can be agreed upon.

Until everyone's basic needs are met, the real meaning cannot be discussed in any reasonable, rational, non-contradictive manner. Just as I cannot talk about it in the pure nature that it is, here in my job, in my 'American dream', when the awareness that I have of it requires me to contradict myself, or make a decision to take action toward seeing the fundamental requirements are met.

j: But you said that when people were starving to death, that's when we were closer to seeing the 'truth'.

i: They are. But that doesn't mean that it's not just as possible to see the truth from a non-starving position. It's that, put into a situation where the stark contrast of life vs. death is apparent - in the direct awareness - they are closest to understanding the first part of the meaning. To survive. Once you 'survive'.. then come the next questions...

What is the purpose of my survival?

What is the purpose of our survival? (the human race)

j: "I’m bored- someone entertain me!"

i: This would be the most entertaining Television show you would ever watch if you had individuals involved that did not let the dialogue descend into blame and contradiction. This is the 'meaning' that everyone extracts from all 'drama, comedy, documentary', story. But nowadays its told through allegory and metaphor. Because we haven't realized how to make it 'real'

j: yo

i: It would be shockingly easier to educate, not only children, but all humans with this information, if they were willing to receive it. The problem is that people believe that they have to protect themselves, their identity, and defend it against the contrasting and comparing that they're doing with it at the same time against others.

The consensus is that there is no ultimate meaning to life, therefore everyone must create their own meanings. But our meanings come in conflict. So we have to defend ourselves. We use idioms like 'It's all relative' 'That’s' your perception' 'I'm entitled to my opinion' to refute others opinions, perceptions, and beliefs. To isolate ourselves, and enforce a false belief of uniqueness, that is only false in the way we enforce it. We are in fact unique. Just not in the way that we declare that we're unique with the 'identity' that we've built.

Given all of this, we are not open to others educating us on what truth is. And as long as we accept the unstated but spontaneously agreed upon conclusion (which really isn't a conclusion at all) that there is no all-encompassing meaning to life, then we won't allow anyone else to tell us there is. Or if they do have it, we won't recognize it. Unless the weight of its truth is so undeniable to us, that we simply believe it... know it to be truth

The absolute opposite to this is the rhetoric that 99% of politicians partake in.

j: There is a book out which is riling a lot ov people up

about how the 'white' race is being diluted

by inbreeding with other races

there are many people freaked out about this

when we are at that level

I just kan't see people being ready for what you just said

i: Freaked out, by that you mean they believe that it's a bad thing that's happening?

j: Yes

very upset.

i: But who will empathize and genuinely share compassion with these people?

That's the reason they are where they are.

Why things like that book are written.

j: I discussed it with some

not heatedly

or accusingly

just trying to understand.

i: That so succinctly summarizes the entire point. People create these meanings, because they have no others. They create a meaning that white is superior, and a drama in that the insuperior are destroying the superior. This is an explanation to problems

to the world they see around them

j: But it seems that people are obsessed with divisions

i: It makes such perfect sense, even if you exclude the 'psychological' label that would be put on such an explanation. Some might say they are obsessed with division because they want to be unique,... and that may be true in cases. But I would say, see it as they are trying to divide themselves from the 'pain' that they feel. They project that pain and then divide themselves from it.

I know because I've done it.

j: When you're a kid- my family is better than other families; then my school is better than other schools; my state is better than other states; my country is better than other countries, my race is better than other races; my religion, business, etc etc is better!

i: Because, from inception, that is what we witness is modeled in our whole life.

j: I think it's because ov low self esteem.

I mean, how can you possibly be proud ov your race?

It's no accomplishment

you were born

you did nothing to be that way.

i: When you remove the seriousness, it's quite ridiculously hilarious!

j: i know!

Yet people need something to feel proud ov.

i: All of us.

Even I am guilty.

j: But that seems like something that's pretty retarded to be proud ov

kinda pathetic.

i: But what we should realize is that being proud of something isn't wrong... that is if we truly understand what pride is. But what we take part in being proud of, if it is in any way divisive, is not the truth or meaning that we are seeking in it.

j: I have a curiosity question

i: Shoot.

j: How many hits does this site usually get on average?

i: About 160 per week.

j: (kinda off topic)

cool

i: Some people stay on for quite a while. Which I understand since the conversations are usually quite lengthy. Some people actually go to the site by typing in New Netizen into the Google search engine. Which means that some people are intentionally going to it, rather than say just stumbling across it.

So that's good. Provided we can shed some light on things for them, and hopefully inspire their participation.

j: Well if you get any white power people, they're probably pissed about this convo

haha

i: We'd love to talk with them!

Jason you can handle that one.

j: I would

i: I'll take a vacation that week.

j: I like to talk to people with different viewpoints

i: ditto

j: And try to understand

"why are you so stupid?"

i: laughs. "I'm really trying to understand why you're so stupid!"

"I'm really TRYING!"

j: hahaha

i: In my and I imagine all of our experience, we've had discussions with people who seemed 'unmovable', and it's not really possible or our place to change those people's minds. They have to change on their own, and quite frankly nothing anyone can say can affect anyone else unless the other person allows it. But you can plant seeds that if the mental ground is fertile, will grow and the person will think they thought it themselves... or it will exist as a weed or plant alongside their other plant, and the plants will contradict each other until one of them is rooted out. That's a big part of what I believe too. I speak about this stuff with certainty, but my mind is always open. If someone can explain it better, I'm there.

And I've experienced enough to know there are times when you can think you're right, only to later discover how wrong you were. But then there are some things that you have held as truth that have remained that way. Which is also why, when you discuss 'life' it's much easier (even though many people would think it’s difficult and avoid the topic because that is their experience), because as long as you keep in perspective the simple fact you're alive, it’s easy to go anywhere from there.

Unless you're talking with someone who denies they're alive. Like Matt

Though even that can be fun!

j: haha

We needed Tim’s input on this convo!

and Matt's

and the pope's

we should invite him in.

i: And Michael Jackson for good measure

I've been considering inviting someone from work. Juan.

He's expressed interest.

We've had long philosophical talks on company time.

j: That would be cool

a third perspective.

i: I'll let him know it's Thursday's at 6:30 and we'll see how interested he is. I wouldn't mind inviting Tim. We could discuss 'God' and he could defend God and we could point out God's contradictions and that would draw the Christians in to view the site and send us hate mail, but there would be Google ads on the pages that scan the text and see we're talking about God so the ads would display

"WWJD" T-Shirt! links, and the Christians would click on those to buy them and we'd make money.

oh sweet!

j: hahaha

good stuff indeed

well now

I think it's bed time

i: I wholeheartedly agree.

j: I must ponder more what we've spoke ov

i: Also... just to give you the heads up... I'm really interested in what YOUR thoughts are on the whole 'meaning of life' thing. So if you have a theory, hypothesis, etc... you'd like to elaborate on, I'd love to discuss it. I like talking when I get on a roll, but I know everyone's got a piece of the puzzle, so I must have yours! MUST TAKE IT FROM YOU!!

until I have all of them

and then I'll sell them on eBay.

j: ha!

i: 'my precious'

j: I'll put them on YouTube for free!

i: Didn't you hear, YouTube will be paying its users for their content!

j: bastards!

i: laughs

with 'ads' inserted either before or after the video!

I hope after *fingers crossed*

j: yup

i: Then I can close the Firefox window quickly.

Or hopefully they'll have all my global RFID information and they'll advertise things I'll want. But more hopefully, by then I won't want a damn thing.

Alright, get to bed.

I must go do math homework. Hooray!

j: Talk at cha laterzzzzz...

i: Chow!

^top