last week's doublelog on Conspiracies.
1/11/2007
 

Dialogue: The Plausibility and Meanings of Conspiracies...
1/18/2007

istoba: ah, yes, and my sister wanted me to come over and watch 'An Inconvenient Truth', but I has no time, or interest at this point, being as that global warming and our impending doom is inescapable

jASON: whatevah

this is my united states of whatever

i: I just watched the video for that the other day on YouTube. And I downloaded one of his Lynch pod casts. It was quite quirky, and somewhat enjoyable

j: good stuff

i: Gore Gore Gore I actually saw the movie in the theatre. It escaped being boring, but it wasn't quite as spectacular as some made it out to be

j: hmmmm

looked boring

but you neve know

probably needed some explosions

i: just like in real life

I'd like to start us on track and express an interest in discuss conspiracies again. Because I have a lot of thoughts on and interest in them... though obviously not in the 'blind' sense I would say I used to. Heck, I used to think Clinton was awful! And to some degree, I doubt the strange reasoning that now suggests he wasn't. But I think I just wasn't really aware enough back then to make a sound judgment

j: he was awful in a lot ov ways

but pretty much every president has been

i wonder if there ever was a time when a normal person, you know, like a ditch digger or McDonald’s worker or someone you see every day, could become president

i: I found myself wondering that not too long ago too. The saying is that 'anyone can be president', but it's so fundamentally untrue. The media would never give coverage to an average person. And I don't know what would constitute average either.

j: someone not mega rich

someone accustomed to average problems

i: But even taking for instance, Howard Dean, who by all means should have been a reasonable contestant, why is it that the media will not tolerate something as cool as the 'waahhhooo' welp that he gave out. That's real. That kind of thing comes from the heart, a sign of life, but that to them is a sign of a person being 'unfit for the presidency'

What do you think qualifies, or should qualify someone for a position like that? A position of such 'power'?

j: well

when you become president

you should be injected with several different terminal diseases

so that health issues are more important to you

hahaha

i: I like your line of reasoning.

I once thought that people should seek positions of power or management, and these positions should be filled, with the intent that the ultimate goal is to work yourself out of a job. The opposite to that is where a person seeks to perpetuate their position of power, by ensuring there will always be a 'need'

That's another thing I find interesting...

It seems that on the 'power' level - in positions of 'power' that society grants a 'pass' to so to say for spending large amounts of money to 'shape' civilization - there is an inherent and implied 'meaning' to life. Even though outwardly, it is implied that there is no meaning to life. None that anyone or everyone should agree on

how do you reconcile the two? Or is it just another one of those social and individual series of inevitable contradictions?

and that make me want to know your thoughts on contradictions

j: the meaning ov life is life, liberty, and the pursuit ov happiness

or, as ice cube put it before he became a family movie star

"life ain't nuttin' but bitches and money"

i: seems like something Ice-T would say :)

j: no

that was nwa

now he's in family friendly movies

like "are we there yet?"

hjahaha

i: one must be allotted certain leeways I suppose

j: anyway

yeah

"the pursuit of happiness"

i: but so little is directly, openly, or literally spoken about what 'happiness' is, except in a sense of 'it's personal'. But yet we have to organize society, and all of these problems arise and present themselves because of the disparate ideas and beliefs about what happiness is, how one should get it, and at what cost?

j: should people be led to happiness?

or by happiness do they just mean "the absence of unhappiness"

i: people should definitely not be led to happiness, at least not without some initial vocal agreement and understanding about what they're being led to, and in that latter sense it's not a problem. It is a problem if people relegate the arrangements of their lives, society, and 'taxes' (to use a heated word) to 'government', individuals tasked with 'leading the way'. This invokes the 'ends justifies the means perspective.

in which case people like President Bush believe (perhaps sincerely, perhaps not) that as long as the lauded goal is for good, the means can be by any

j: well

i: either you've got a long reply, or you went for popcorn!

j: I suppose they want to try to keep people 'comfortable', and then hopefully they'll be able to pursue happiness

sorry

had to talk to the wife a second

i: No problem

Again though, leave people to their own accord to pursue happiness, without taking into consideration that ours is a communal life, not solely and individual one, so happiness plays a dual role. There are definitely personal preferences for what makes individuals happy, and there's no reason to interfere with that, but in the 'common' scale, at least in my experience, there is no discussion about what common happiness is.

I think this too, this atmosphere is what gives rise to conspiracies. Because people want to believe in a 'bigger picture', a connection of events, and they're led to because we see, especially in government, the power and ability to orchestrate things for widespread (all affecting) purpose

j: the conspiracy angle

i: it all fits, I think we'll see

j: hahaha

"i knew it!!"

i: precisely!

j: what's you favorite conspiracy?

i: And I have a certain sense of empathy for people who experience or suffer from (if they're opposed to it) a neurosis arising from their experience with civilization. It's very difficult to live a meaningful life on this planet, in my view, at least presently

there are so many!

They're all almost equally intriguing

It's the spirit behind them, that grasps for the 'reason', the 'meaning', the one that makes sense, because whatever it is that's human doesn't buy the line fed by those who it is believed orchestrate the events for meaning, reason, purpose.

j: well

let's start with one that you think holds a lot ov water...

i: 9/11

j: ah yes

i: and that is very important for the time we are in

j: lots ov theories about that one

i: absolutely. And it's not surprising, because it plays perfectly into the worldview that I think a lot of people share, that at this time in life, it's less likely than more, that things (at least as far as human involvement is concerned) are just random. The universe can still be viewed with a great amount of believability in 'randomness', but humans have created an art out of meaning

still, allowing for the general feeling of anxiety or confusion as to what can be done about the 'conspiracy'

j: but when things "just don't add up"

i: exactly

what is it though that we are referring to when we say or feel 'they don't add up'?

j: when things are supposed to, or should reasonable (probability wise) go a certain way

and they don't

and it seems that they have been "influenced"

i: and what we see, what we're getting at is the motives behind the players

that's the point where we can start to add things up.. and in some cases, make great leaps in logic!

but I don't disparage that, because I don't see the harm in it

there's more harm in the possibility of the accuracy of the conspiracy, then in the reality of it not being true, and still asserting the conspiracy

j: 2 + 2 = ?

i: all a conspiracy is is a definition of an event or sequence of events

it seeks to find the meaning behind it

quite simply

now there are some meanings that it would appear the individuals in power (and this includes those involved in the media) would like us to believe, and then there are those that the conspiracists advance. Why is one version of events so much more easily digestible?

j: i was going to ask you something on our "evolution" discussion

and i forgot to

i: shoot

but it might fit here as well

one ov your fav things to say

a long time ago

was that you don't believe in "nothing"

what do you feel about that now?

i: I am at a point where I firmly believe (yet still with an open mind for someone able to convince me otherwise) that that statement 'nothing' does not exists, is truth to the point of constituting a means of understanding everything in the universe. The statement actually cancels itself out, but it points to the truth behind it, which I can elaborate on more if you'd like

j: please do

I’m going to relate it to our current conversation about conspiracies in a minute

i: very nice. I'm positive a contradiction will peek its head out. But that's half the fun!

briefly, one cannot think of nothing. One can think of 'absence', which is rather memory of something, or one can think of empty space and believe this constitutes nothing, based on their sense experience of there being no resistance. But in fact, space itself is something, just as air molecules are something.

...

but this leads to, on a scientific level, there appearing to be large amounts of space between the particles that compose everything we see and don't see...

... this can lead one also to believe in nothing (and I think convinces many scientists). But again, in order to think of it, you have to make it something. Nothing as a reality, would have to constitute you not existing, which you, and everyone, in fact does, though again you can't prove this per se. It's a common sense, axiomatic - neither provable nor disprovable – matter, but it does relate to understanding life.

...

...

With respect to Stefan Hlatky’s hypothesis, life, all of it, is just activity. Einstein proved this (e=mc2), and activity no more exists than 'walking' exists without a leg. The entirety of existence is one giant 'something', with no space, no nothing, nothing else conceivable surrounding it. It constitutes everything. And what we experience in creation, and when we look out into the galaxy, is activity, like walking, an expression of this 'everything'. Activity does not exist. which is why everything in creation can be broken down, and we can't find its original cause. All we find is more space... because you can't find the source of something that is everything.

...

and I qualify that activity doesn't 'exist' in any real sense, but it does however in a meaningful sense. in that it gives us the idea that we are 'outside' of this everything we are in.

I imagine sleep is like this 'everything', and there is no experience there, which is why the 'everything' creates/vibrates the universe into a believable, but unrealistic reality

that's my take on nothing

and probably only a part of it

and that wasn't too brief!

j: hahaha

well

can you create something out ov nothing?

i: no

j: that's what conspiracy theorists are accused ov

i: haha!

but without the accusers understanding what nothing is, either!

j: could god create something he couldn't lift?

huh?

HUH??

haha

no

just kidding

i: God cannot even lift itself

!!

because to lift would be to move, and to move would mean it would have to have space surrounding it, which would mean it wasn't 'everything', and if it wasn't everything, you'd just wonder what 'everything' was though. It's inevitable. Because we need meaning

that's my new scriptural alternative to the bible

j: hahaha

so

if someone says that something means nothing to them

what they really mean is...

?

i: it holds no 'meaning', no 'importance' to the meaning they are trying to construct or find. They wouldn't even say it means nothing if they weren't implying a contrast for and to the meaning they are looking for (and indirectly referring to).

Or they may not understand the relation it holds. and if they don't understand, or don't believe in the possibility for this 'something' to assist in them discovering the meaning they're looking for, then they feel the need to discard it, to give it no meaning. And it may be that it indeed has no meaning. It's kind of a way of disputing the existence of the universe

we don't believe this universe

we just don't know how to prove it doesn't exist, that it's not real.

j: i see

when someone says that a conspiracy theorist is making 'something out ov nothing'

they are referring to people making connections

that aren't readily apparent

i: yes

I'll elaborate...

they are more than likely not understanding the reasons behind the conspiracists making the connections they are making, hence leading to, usually a spontaneous knee-jerk discounting of the proposed theory. If we stopped to discuss, or felt there was a meaningful 'end result' to discussing the merits of the theory, then I think the conspiracists and the doubters would get somewhere. But..

nowadays we don't generally feel we have the time, or see the possibility of success or meaning, behind having such a discussion

j: they are afraid

i: could be that too

and that raises and excellent point!

what is the purpose of acknowledging the validity of a sequence of events that proves the 'capacity for darkness' within humans. We don't want to see that. Or as the case may be, with say you or me, we do want to see it because we believe in a more fundamental good behind it. I still believe people who do bad things do them because they believe it serves some good, even if that good is just for them.

j: wellllll

i think that a lot ov people try to make these connections because they feel that being 'aware' is important

as in maybe if they have more knowledge/ info, they can either a) help stop it; or b) be prepared for the eventual outcome

i: definitely. we want to be fortune tellers, prophets, because that could make us important, helpful, relevant, and we want to be able to 'create' our future. And as was so pointedly said in the X Files by the well manicured man, the best way to predict the future, is to create it.

we basically would all love to be little gods with infinite power.

j: and look what happened to him

i: or alternatively, to have a real experience of love. Whatever that may be

:D

j: aiieeee!

a smiley!!

i: poor well manicured man.

what do you think about 'nothing'? and conspiracies? What is your take on their place in reality

j: well

i was going to bring up one that seems like it's truth lays closer to the 'top'

the flight that everyone (a whole city) saw shot down

i: would that be TWA Flight 800?

j: yes

on that one, unlike a lot ov conspiracy theories, the truth seems to lie closer to the mainstream

like just a little digging would uncover it, beyond the shadow ov a doubt

but people still won't pay attention

they think it's nothing

or below their concern

what about the people with family members on that flight?

where are they?

i: precisely. But do people even pay attention after the fact? To the 'official line'? We're all just as apathetic towards 9/11 as possible. We don't feel a connection with these people, or their lives, as is often the case for those we don't know, and more so for those we have no compassion for because our capacity for compassion is siphoned off by a society constructed and executed in such a fashion

to result in this.

j: why is the truth so important to some

but others don't care

i: an amazing question

j: i can understand that it (the trust) would be bothersome to some

and even painful

maybe that's why, for some

but not all

i: we care about what we feel. feeling arises from the movements of the body's organs. What's far away can be hard to feel.

j: but what about other people's pain

i: we have to be able to relate to it

j: the neural impulses don't jump from their body to ours

i: take for example someone on the flight that was shot down. What reason(s) do you have for caring about them?

j: none on the surface

i: but fundamentally

j: if thought about logically

the earth is already overcrowded

i: and fundamentally is a funny word

j: less people is better

however

i: haha!

j: well

even looking at it in a way that "well, one person on that plane could have been the next big bringer ov peace to the world"

they also could have been the next hitler or serial killer

so that doesn't work

i: what is it that develops between friends and family over many years that makes it difficult when they pass away?

j: familiarity?

i: I think in a certain sense, yes. We really relate to people who we feel know us or understand us. We want to be known and understand, or in some cases the complete opposite because we don't believe in the possibility of being known or understood. Someone in the world trade tower, or on flight 800, I don't identify myself with them, and so perhaps I don't feel like a part of me dies with them if...

... they die

j: however

i: but this is highly bound up in using other people as mirrors for our identity

j: I think a lot ov it is that people kan't stand unfairness

it's not the people who died

it's the situation

it wasn't fair that that happened to them

i: and why are people very energized around fairness?

j: I think it's something from when we were children

you always hear children say that

"that's not fair!!"

i think that fairness is important to people

not necessarily in their dealings with others (obviously)

but in general

i: I'd agree with that

j: when someone hears about something happening that's unfair, it outrages them

(tho they can always rationalize their own acts ov unfairness)

i: yes, how do we measure fairness? by what measure, what standard?

j: balance

i: our experiential lexicon? Our belief of what we deserve?

where do we get these ideas as well?

j: "a fair fight"

"he was cheated"

etc.

if something is unfair

it's not right

at least that's how it's perceived

(unless it's unfair in our favor, haha)

i: and do you think that's an inherent, inborn faculty? or is it something we develop? or a mixture?

j: i think it's both

i: why do we do that though? Why do we want to judge things? And I'm very much an advocate for judging, so I don't ask the question as though judging is bad

j: but I think that's what a lot ov these conspiracy theorists are shouting

"it's not fair!"

i: and would you say they are shouting for the people who died? In a sense, exhibiting a social compassion

j: i think just in general

angry at the unfairness in general

I’m sure they feel some compassion for those who died

but i think the overall unfairness is above it all

and the loss ov freedom/ feeling ov being controlled and lied to

fairness

lies

power

freedom

control

hmmm

i: very powerful words

j: and concepts

add fear

that's another one

i: These are exactly the things we have no general discussion of, though we have the technological means to now, we'd rather be entertained by stories, albeit we do like when those stories are written by people, with believably executed meaning

j: hahaha

at one time, stories were the way we communicated these things

i: exactly!

I think we've relegated meaning to science, and we're hoping they'll one day get on tv and announce the all applicable meaning. Hundreds of years ago, meaning was much more important than today. Even though, fundamentally it is still just as important. It's almost taken a subversive role. No one wants to talk about it openly, but everyone wants to talk about it!

maybe it's we want to have our cake and eat it to

we want the impossible

and we won't be satisfied until we get it

even though it's not possible

perhaps we've ceased to believe in the possibility of impossibility

j: if only...

"here wings take dream"

i: I'm laughing, what's that from?

j: a bush speech

i: wow

j: hahaha

i: and I really have to emphasize, there's something very intriguing to me about Bush. I can't put my finger on it. It's beyond the power and ridiculously unbelievable stupidity or feigning of ignorance. just something about him as a person intrigues me

j: hahaha

i: my 4 year old nephew reminds me A LOT of bush

and he has bush's nose

j: i wonder if there will ever be a time when people don't believe in a higher power?

i: I too. Why does hierarchy play such a invasive role?

j: i guess there'll always be google

hahaha

"the church of google"

its power can't be denied!

i: I think that if you can conceive of everything, then you can surpass hierarchy. Because in everything, there's no way to move from one position to another. There would need to be space to to that.

j: can you remember a time without google?

i: basically what I’m advocating is chaining everyone up!

j: because i can't

and that scares me

i: I LOVE google!

I'd marry google

j: but can you remember a time before it?

i: vaguely.

j: hahaha

i wonder what will be next

there once was no google

ebay

i: there once was no youtube

j: youtube

i: haha

j: we both said it!

i: though I hate youtube

HATE!

:@

hate!

haha

j: but 2 years ago there was no youtube

i: where was my hate?

must've been pointed at something else

j: 2 years from now, what will we be saturated with, that we don't know ov now

i: I can guarantee it will be just as useless as everything today

j: smellovision!

i: even google, as much as I love it, is useless

all of the world’s problems could be solved without any modern technology. But it’s easier to say than do.

although they could be solved faster with it

j: I read something very interesting

i: but we're to fascinated by it to use it for that

j: tell me what you think ov this:

i: k

j: the kids ov today seem very intelligent to me

they're taking math classes in 5th grade that i didn't even have to take to graduate

computer classes

etc etc

very advanced

however...

i read that the kids ov today are actually very far below where we are

because they have no problem solving skills

no real ones

when we had to research something

we had to go to a museum, the library to look it up, etc.

they just go to google

if computers were all taken off line

they would be useless

what do you think?

i: I concur. I would not know what to do without a computer. Or more accurately, I wouldn't want to do it. It's like going from broadband back to dial up.

j: soooo

i: I think more pointedly, we all have problem solving skills, but it takes effort to use them, and we have little leftover energy to expend any effort

j: do you think the government is behind google, the internet, and youtube??!!!!

to take away people's practical problem solving skills??

i: oooh, that's a new one!

j: and make more reliance on the government

i: I hadn't thought of it that way

j: THIS CONVERSATION IS OVER

PLEASE CLOSE YOUR BROWSER AND REPORT TO...

i: That's just scary! it's possible. But I still say you must ask? Who are these people? These government people? and who do they think they are? and what do they think they're doing, and for what purpose

j: control

importance

i: they must be grasped by their shoulders and shaken!

j: i think you're the man to do it

i: but I'll be killed!

j: or

you could just rent some videos and hope everything turns out ok

i: that's my plan! And I have a trusty backup plan here under my piano seat bench, where are written instructions to remind me to do just that (in case I forget)

j: hahaha

well

i think it's almost time for bed

i: how have you been sleeping?

j: ok

i: I had this one night of sleep just a little over a week ago that was spectacular

j: hahaha

i: most everything else is like I'm not even sleeping at all

j: that sucks

i: yes, and when you wake up and it feels the same as the previous day. that sucks

especially when you didn't like the previous day!

and that you didn't like that you didn't like the previous day

j: you should shake things up a bit

tomorrow, go to work without any pants on

i: hahaaha

I thought about going in some pajamas

and hoping they'd fire me

j: maybe

they'd let you telecommute

i: haha! I can access my computer at work from home, and work on it

but why do that?

j: so you don't have to deal with the filth that is humanity

i: but I love humanity. and all its filth

j: i know

revel in filth!

i: it's not so bad

j: and sometimes there's cookies!

i: the meaning to life

j: well

i'm gonna try to get some sleep

you do the same...

i: sweet sweet sleep

thanks!

j: no prob

next week

Wednesday?

i: think of some questions or topics you want to talk about and delve deeply into

and yes, Wednesday we'll do that

j: cool

talk at cha then...

i: I'll do the same

cheers!

and sayonara

^top

Copyright Free2007 New Netizen. Reservation Free. Attribution Appreciated.