Tag Archives: science

World War Reality II – Hypnotic Illusion

big-brother-obamaBarack – Grand Magician

World War Real – Part I

And from Misinformation onto Illusion…

Think on this – Illusion

Ultimately, much of what we understand to be “information,” may, in fact, be misinformation.  Information creates our own personal illusions about reality.  These illusions may be personal or social.  And, naturally, personal understanding affects an individual’s social understanding. Much like the North versus South conflict previously discussed, the conflict itself acts as a misinformation indicator.  The most heated conflicts in human interaction have political and/or religious roots.

First, let’s explore events of mass illusion.  The year was 1979, and Joe Newman presented free energy to the world with his latest “energy machine” design.  Scientists scoffed while he quickly gained popularity and reached stardom.  Despite all of the sophisticated reason scientists threw at it, people cheered Newman on.  People simply wanted to believe – and, well, they did.  Joe represented a symbol of hope.  He came from a humble background, and was a high school dropout.  Newman was the people’s hero during his moment in the spotlight – a scientific revolutionary!

With the country inspired by the free energy fire, Joseph Newman spoke of godly visions and waved Einstein’s Theory of Special Relativity around.  Newman claimed that God appointed him as “steward for his gift,”  and explained that energy is sustainable at the speed of light.  Through using Einstein’s equation and visions, Newman appealed to disassociated authorities.  This obscured any authority’s identity through the devices of a largely scientifically uneducated society, and an unknowable god.  In effect, Newman created and continued to fuel this mass illusion of hype, hope, and an American dream.

Unfortunately, hope cannot defy the laws of thermodynamics.  Law one, or Conservation, overturned any probable notion of the perpetual motion device ever creating energy.  Law two, or Entropy, shut Newman’s case down completely – As, it states that when energy is expended, there will always be a loss.  Joe always boasted of what miracles the machine could never do, nor, would he ever be able to demonstrate.  The scientific community sharply debunked Newman’s claims with what is now taught in an introductory Physics course.

Street magicians such as David Blaine and Criss Angel would later rush in once again to steal our hearts, leaving us filled with mystery and awe believing that these gurus somehow gained insight into the metaphysical realm(s).  Angel walked on water, floated from building to building, while Blaine could throw a poker card at a moving bus window and make it appear on the other side.  Blaine wrote his book “Mysterious Stranger,” only to cast more shadows over his act.  He revealed some simple “magic” tricks, but offered spiritual advice, as well – never fully uncloaking himself.  Angel landed a TV show.  Both magicians pulsed through the internet on Youtube videos.  Angel caught my eye when he walked on water.  People were swimming underneath his feet while he was crossing over a hotel pool to illustrate that there was no solid platform underneath him.

Acts like those of Blaine and Angel swept the nation because they preformed with no pre-rigged stage to assist them.  Some people were convinced that they were performing real magic because the no “smoke and mirrors” environment made their acts seem impossible.  However, their fame was short-lived, and simply exposed by critical thinkers.  Both magicians used similar methods in their performances.  They utilized the entire shroud of the internet to distract the audience.  They would perform basic tricks in front of real enthusiasts and tape their reactions.  Then, they would later return to the area and use machines, props, and other tools of their trade that would have been easily spotted by the gawking crowd, earlier.  For example, Blaine would stage a partner inside the bus to stick an identical poker card to the one he would throw at the bus on the inside of the window.  Chris angel used cranes to “levitate” from building to building.  Angel also used clear, hollow (this explains people swimming under his feet), plastic boxes to walk across the water on.

Another interesting feat is “cold reading,” and the general science of hypnosis. Both, “cold reading” and mass hypnosis exploit subconscious suggestion.  In “cold reading,” a person claiming to be a “psychic” will say a basic, and very common name aloud – asking the crowd if anyone knows a “Bob” or “Michael,” or “Susan”…etc.  An even simpler tactic just uses a letter for the read.  Naturally, a member in the crowd will excitedly jump out of their seat and give up a name that it may be.  Then the “psychic” plays off of the information given, and may “cold read” for further information.  Mass hypnosis is can be simply powered in the same manner – by an idea.

Weapons alone, do not kill people, but beliefs doHitler commanded and army with an idea. Saturated with Hitler’s propaganda, the German Third Reich society became convinced that the Jewish people killed their Lord and savior. Ready and willing, the army took up the sword of vengeance and moved on their perceived enemy. Aldolf Hitler’s tactics are sickening, but he was not the first war commander to use this method.  Not by any measure.  Information is the very fulcrum, upon which social leverage functions.  Information is the axis upon which the social world spins.  Information becomes an idea when believed in, and a force of nature when fueled by emotion.  In Hitler’s case, the emotion of love and other honorable and ethical notions were channeled into a system of ideas grounded in a pre-existing framework of the nation.  Hitler simply stoked the embers Martin Luther left behind – igniting a white hot fire, religious in nature. Did Hitler invent this form of social control? Not by any means. The ancient Mayans were convinced that the gods would not let the sun shine until a sufficient amount of human blood was offered.  The ancient Egyptians are said to have believed that their rulers were gods, themselves.  This belief fueled war and slavery alike. In his book, “The Art of War,” war master and descendant from a rich bloodline of war advisors, Sun Tzu (500 BCE), named religious faith as the “first constant.” in successful warfare:

The Moral Law causes the people to be in complete accord with their ruler, so that they will follow him regardless of their lives, undismayed by any danger.

History is rich with other examples, as well.  In conclusion – massive cultural alignment, or paradigm, is catalyzed by a very religious type of faith. In ancient tribal traditions, the spiritual advisor, or, Shaman of the tribe, was/is placed beside the King, or tribal leader.  In terms of cultural alignment, the Shaman’s advice wields the highest appeal to authority – even placed beyond the influence of the tribe’s Alpha male.  Also, another mysterious example of illusion is the Tibetan Tulpa Effect (must read – very interesting) .  All these examples denote instances, if not constants, of mass illusion – from Hitler to the tribal Shaman.

However, mass hypnosis is not so complex in models illustrating its effects on smaller group dynamics. A religious faith emotionally charges ideas, but is not the only game on the block.  Social dynamics allow for a variety of “controls.”  Peer pressure, non-religious ethically charged forms of leadership (aka – political ideologies), societal values, social deviance, in group/out group dynamism, sub-cultural facets, and other pockets of social/group motives may all be culprits of mass illusions. Yet, inducing hypnosis is as simple as planting an idea through a sleight of hand delivery – or, tapping another’s subconscious.

Current U.S. president, Barack Obama, not only monopolized on the minority vote simply by being a minority himself, but flawlessly executed other key tactics of mass hypnotism by sparking positive associations with his campaigns.  Obama demonstrated textbook propaganda techniques in wording “hope,” “change,” and his platinum hit “Yes we can!” in his speeches.  These simple techniques touched on deeper levels within the democratic identity of American policy.  Obama hit the very mark to ignite cultural alignment – And, with both tact and precision.  His win was a easy prediction to call from my perspective. Now, if only we could bet on it, haha. I could make quick and lofty financial gains every four years.  But, with all his hope preaching, the national economy still plummeted as projected, and he finished where his predecessor, George W. Bush left off.  Since then, we’ve seen criminal corporate bailouts, the passing of more laws, the unnecessary expansion of government, and…I’ll just stop there.  I do have a larger point here.

There are several options to choose from when a U.S. voter registers, but since the presidency in America was established, two primary groups have been the only players in the presidential circuit.  In the beginning, there were Federalists and Anti-Federalists.  The two groups changed their game uniforms up, and are now the Republican versus Democrat false dichotomy.  It’s amazing what linguistics can achieve.  Unfortunately, this is where class division begins.  And, by class-division, I mean social inequality.

To restate the thesis of this writing series – Misinformation instills a mass illusion creating social inequality, and thus establishes ranks of enslavement.  

Social Inequality will be thoroughly discussed in the next piece of this series.  Stay tuned! Sources will be cited eventually!

1 Comment

Filed under anthropology, blog, Blogging, cultural relativism, culture, Game, God, love, non fiction, Perception, Philosophy, Politics, psychology, Religion, Science, skepticism, Social Evolution, sociology, Subconscious, thinking, war

The Cumulative Subjective

Don't be one!

Can beauty be objective?  (This can be applied to ethics, as well)

First, it’s important to note possibility versus probability.  Logically, anything unquantifiable is possible, but this does not denote its probability.  Said variable can only be established as probable through examination and testing.

If the question were to interchange “can” with the word “is,” then probability would be the potentiality in question. Whereas, the use of “can” is a general inquiry.  Thus, the answer to this question is – yes.

This concludes lesson one in this discussion.

Secondly, “objectivity” is often mistaken for an absolutist ideal. In contrast, it is based on a cumulative subjectivity.  This compromises the objective sentiment, entirely. Scientific study is centered on confirmed observation(s). Any proposed system of how discoveries synthesize is subject to change.  Acting as an “objective” observer simply implies that one acts without bias to the best of his/her ability.

Across history, there are a plethora of accounts where observations were incorrect, but were entered into widespread objectivity.  My two favorite accounts of this are the “Flat Earth” and “Geocentric Theory” incidents.  A good question for any critical thinker to ask at this point would be – “How do I know that the Earth is not flat, nor does it exist in a geocentric system.” In all reality, unless you’ve traveled to a point in the cosmos where you can see a round earth for yourself, or accurately verified the relationship of the planets with the sun – you cannot. At this point, you must appeal to authority for any ‘objective’ statement.

Problem? It may be difficult to see, so I will spell it out for you. In appealing to authority, one acts with bias. At this point a bias concerning said authority is developed, and sentimental judgment is employed. This tends to be problematic, as, bias is in direct violation of objectivity.

This concludes lesson two.

Lesson Three – Conclusion: In light of lesson two, we are to conclude that “objectivity” is ultimately a cumulative “subjectivity.”  This is still correctly held over personal subjectivity as meeting any prerequisites of attaining certainty, yet should not be mistaken for having attained it.  This would present the conflict of bias, as well. This is the veritable stumbling block that holds scientific endeavor away from progress. Highly achieved scientific professionals understand this. Any ‘fact’ must consistently slave to the whip of scrutiny in order to follow the general direction the ideal of objectivity travels in.

This concludes lesson three.

Lesson Four: As for reaching an objective notion of Beauty? Like ethics, beauty is contingent upon intrinsic identity. However, as with ethics, it can be agreed upon within societies and perpetuated by cultural paradigms. And, yes, as with ethical sentiments, it shows universal consistencies.  Some aspects of nature can be objectively verified as far as objectivity is enabled to encompass. The best example, according to my understanding, personal observation, and the authorities I am forced to appeal to – is sexual attraction. This type of beauty recognition is universal with the exemption of homosexuality minority and a few cases of unmoved abstinence (and, I won‘t mention other anomalies, lol). Inherent constants emerge as stimulus provoked by symmetry, health/genetic evaluation (which, symmetry recognition also serves),  hormonal agendas, and pheromones…to name a few. There are environmental, general arts, and, yes – even mathematical arguments for beauty recognition, as well.  Another factor to address is cultural and societal bias. Can you identify it in yourself?

Lesson four: Concluded

There is much, much, more information and philosophical arguments (including a few interesting current discoveries) on the topic, as well.  However – I didn’t promise a book! Google is your friend! Haha…

Leave a comment

Filed under anthropology, Archetype, blog, Blogging, Brain, cultural relativism, culture, humanism, love

Behavioral Software: End Game

Image

The fear, loss of control, and the posturing for an agreeable social position (both socially and subjectively designed) – all, while wielding a pre-conceptual schematic entailed with strategy, or, schema –  Is –  Ultimately, indicative of the ‘Social Conflict Theory‘ endgame.

The endgame in this case – is a kind of ‘Cerebral Real Estate.’ The cognitive identity is vulcanized by both extrinsic and intrinsic variable derivatives – inherent in-group aggression and out-group presets

Throughout cross-cultural and trans-cultural history, people continue to display the same behaviors spawned from old patterns. Social psychology doesn’t change often or quickly. Age old group dynamics remain consistent – and the human species remains resistant to change. Unfortunately, violence hails among these trends prevalent within the human nature, and war is international practice. The motives of leaders may vary, but the outcome shows an unchanging paradigm.

Several ideas have been consistent in social research focused on group aggression. A common theme coined as “chosenness” is typically a fundamental aspect of group based aggression (Eidelson & Eidelson, 2003). “Chosenness” reflects a hierarchy dynamic, posturing its members as superior to others. Typically, such a group is united by assigning itself a task. This conviction provides a feeling of cohesion and kinship within the group. Positioning itself against outsiders, the group tends to form a justified grievance in regard to another group or type of person. Naturally, this can quickly spur negative ramifications. Group violence or war is atypical of this behavior. In example – certain member(s) may perceive an external threat and legitimize aggression in the name of defense. Needless to say, the situation can quickly become hazardous.

Offensive violent proceedings are often justified as preventative measures. At times, aggression is viewed as the only option by the group and violence is a common symptom. Groups of this nature are polarized by a perceived motivational stimulus. A hierarchal group model could have one to possibly several figureheads, or, leaders. Gangs, and other aggressive aleigences may be based on a peer structure. The group may have a loose hierarchal system, or operate without a figure head at all. Positive leadership serves as a prevention in group aggression, but little else has proven effective.

The Social Learning Theory of Aggression is based on the premise that violent groups sustain a correlative relevance to first observing another assault-based model, thus reinforcing any prior violent leanings. Therefore, the behavior is not necessarily inherent – rather, it is learned. Social influence easily takes root in early childhood development. (Bandura, 1973). Higher rates of propensity toward violence have been identified in sub-cultural frameworks that condone and/or reward competitive members. Social scientist and Social Learning Theory of Aggression advocate, Albert Bandura, identified other violent cultural models portrayed in the media (television, video games, movies, sports…etc.), family, and sub-cultures as a key influence in perpetuating violent behavior.

Prejudice and Discrimination are either products of the group or found pre-existing in cultural models. Prejudice targets race, creed, political ideology, religion among other cultural schemas based on counter identities or beliefs. Discrimination extends from behavior, acting on prejudices. It is comprised of similar methodology and roots.


Realistic Conflict Theory provides a historical description leading to the roots of prejudice and discrimination. This model is competition based and reflects the primal nature of men. In example, this conflict is theorized to have been the cultural landscape during the co-existence of Neanderthal and Homo-sapien. Resources were jealously guarded and the competition was so extreme that it eventually led to the extinction of Neanderthal. Later on, this group dynamic was evident among American natives and European settlers.

Prejudice may also arise from the natural segregation societies use to divide up the world into distinct social categories. This is the derivative of the primary violent group models, as it creates the “us versus them” paradigm. The newly adopted mentality results in a binary effect. The “in-group” is the aggressor. The “out-group” is defined by the in-group.

The Social Cognitive Theory suggests that aggressive attitudes and a propensity toward violence is a trait adopted just as easily as any other social behavior and/or attitude. Social cognition is the process through which social information is adapted to mental processes. A familiar social cognition is “stereotyping.” A stereotype represents broadly shared views (typically negative) about another group, subculture, or race processes.

It can be said in several different ways.  It can be held up to the light, and the spectrum may be revealed.  However, if people do not reach for positive goals in resolving conflict, there is little hope for our future.  This may eventually prove to be the end of the game for us.

Leave a comment

Filed under anthropology, Ape, atheism, blog, Blogging, cultural relativism, culture, evolution, Game, Human Condition, humanism, Perception, Philosophy, Politics, psychology, Puzzle, relativity, Religion, Religion and Modern Politics, Science, Social Evolution, sociology, Subconscious, thinking, war, writing

The Uncommon Sense

Common sense is not common. Every person develops their own unique framework of ideas that construct a working understanding of reality. This obstruction can be demonstrated by the diversity in human belief. Unseen deities stand at one end of this spectrum, whereas, pure empiricism is found at the other. Each end offers some form of absolutist posturing. This creates faulty foundations to base our perceptions on.

Are there absolutes? Of course, there are. The counterintuitive principle of an absolute; however, is the limitation of its scope. Absolutism does not provide all pervasive truths. Rather, they are relative to human understanding. Not many people consciously accept this because they need to comprehend their environment at some level. There is not much gained from accepting a realist view on a material level. However, Socrates considered this realization to be the height of his wisdom.

Accepting that we cannot be certain of anything is necessary for our personal and cumulative development. In contrast – A full grasp of reality has served as an evolutionary imperative in the past.Societies could be suspended in animation if the members patiently waited for complete bodies of knowledge before moving forward with daily activities. A humble moderation is needed to walk this fine line that borders restrictive conceits and stumbling foolishness.

The industrial revolution spawned from existing bodies of knowledge, adequate communication, and the development of a functional logic used for experimentation. Opposable thumbs were the original tool created by our species. The thumb enabled advanced tool usage. Logic seems to be the latest human technology. Abstract ideas are now the vehicle we move forward with. Accepting Socratic wisdom affords us unlimited potential. Logic is arguably the next thumb. Like the thumb, it is not something that exists outside ourselves. Silicon chips and quad core processors are simply machines developed through human understanding. Looking only outside of ourselves will continue to be the hindrance in our development. Only through a sincere progression can we move forward. Imagining deities was never detrimental until the hope became suffocated by a greed. Unlike property, we cannot own truth.

Truth remains forever beyond our reach, yet accepting this limitation is necessary for growth.  Through the unyielding results of scientific knowledge, the human species can find certitude to varying degrees.  This gives both hope and reason to keep stumbling forward into the unknown.  Ideas are being tested before they are accepted now.  It can be said that we are positively advancing scientifically.  Yet, technology will immobilize a society if it does not also develop its capacity for humanity in tandem.  For example, a nuclear weapon can destroy a third of the planet.  This is only an estimation.  Something is very wrong.  The existence of such a weapon clearly presses this fact.  What can we do?  We can use the tools available to us.  Political and economic systems are not perfected by any means.  As a species, we fail where we could succeed.  Again, this is due to our greed.  New ideas can be drawn from current bodies of knowledge in these areas.  People seem to be frozen in their conceits – as if current social, cultural, political, and economical paradigms cannot be leveled for progress.  To the contrary, the populace is often discouraged from reaching for any tangible and real change.

Felons are forbidden to vote after they have paid for victimless crimes, while those that are granted the right feel helpless to change anything.  The same economic models are preached by public figure heads.  Finite systems of governance are consistently presented as if they were as sound as scientific law.  Elitists feel that they are fit to rule due to an uneducated populace, yet never educate those they hold themselves over when it is well within their power to do so.  Distrust is bred like a noble horse.  An onlooker might begin to suspect that this is either a product of intention or that the elites continue to show incompetence.  Perhaps it is all the reasons I’ve suggested and more.  When alternative views are voiced, they are quickly funneled into existing themes such as socialism, communism, or measured by the actions of heartless warlords.  In our development of technology, we did not stop at the wheel.  No, and we will not stop when aerospace mechanics is mastered, either.  Progress is fueled by the very desire for it, yet in order for humanity to move in this direction – we must first discover a potential for movement.  Medieval times illustrate this kind of stagnation.  Royal lines ruled by divine right and the masses were then segregated by class.

These lines of class still exist in eerily familiar forms – ranking modern society.  It is nothing less than division of a people.  Unfortunately, due to a mixture of helplessness, fear, and apathy this separation is accepted.  It seems social roles are exacted as if they were engineered – as if lesser classes were left for dead in Plato’s Cave for eons untold.  Bound by chains, they watch representations of reality dance in shadow along the walls of their void.  Enlightenment is denied the more the reality is accepted – adopted, even.

Nonexistent gods were only the beginning of this blindness unfolding.  The gods that concern me are those that bind the progression of our species intentionally.  That is, unless I mistake their incompetence for intention.  I would not be so swift with false notions of certainty, like some.  As in Plato’s allegory, it was “the philosopher” who, after attaining his enlightenment, descended back into the cave to free his people.  However; the same question remains – would they not speak of his madness and refuse the knowledge of their chains?  If he tried to pull them up into the light, would they not feel attacked?

1 Comment

Filed under humanism, Philosophy, Religion and Modern Politics, Social Evolution, thinking