Change Your Conversations/Life

tl;dr: Discussions with people with love and respect done in the spirit of discovery of truth can be a powerful force for personal change. Without love, respect and a concern for truth, discussions devolve into signalling group allegiances and programming / deprogramming The Others and is best avoided.

Anti-idiotarianism: Opposition to idiots of all political stripes. First coined in the blog named Little Green Footballs as part of a post expressing disgust with inane responses to post-9/11 Islamic terrorism. Anti-idiotarian wrath has focused on Islamic terrorists and their sympathizers in the Western political left, but also routinely excoriated right-wing politicians backing repressive ’anti-terror‘ legislation and Christian religious figures who (in the blogosphere’s view of the matter) have descended nearly to the level of jihad themselves.”

-The on-line hacker Jargon File, version 4.4.7, October 30, 2019

“But the Twitter conversation about national politics among U.S. adult users is driven by a small number of prolific political tweeters. These users make up just 6% of all U.S. adults with public accounts on the site, but they account for 73% of tweets from American adults that mention national politics.”

-Adam Hughes, “A small group of prolific users account for a majority of political tweets sent by U.S. adults.” Pew Research Center. October 23, 2019.

Let’s start with the obvious. The baseline is that no one cares what you think, about anything. People don’t want to read your “hot take” about the news of the day. They don’t want to hear about how the world would be so much better, if only you were installed as Emperor of the World. You’re not going to be Emperor of the World.

Even if Emperor of the World were a position for which they were hiring, if you were picked, it’s a certainty you’d fuck it up, as would anyone. Socrates, Buddha, or Jesus might be able to pull it off, but they wouldn’t want the job. You cannot liberate people and rule them at the same time.

For any discussion, this is the central question. Is it going to be an open ended process of discovery searching for truth? Or does it serve some other purpose, like binding a group together around an established ideology? The answer, at least 1 out of a 1000 times, is the latter.

There are people that want, more than anything, to be part of a group, to share in a collective power, even if it is a small share of that power. Discussion, in this context, is programming. With one side trying to program or deprogram the other.

But, people following a program are idiots. Merriam-Webster defines “idiot” as a foolish or stupid person. In this context, I think a better definition of idiot is: a person that subscribes to a particular ideology in order to be accepted as part of a group, thinks their opinions are correct (though they are idiosyncratic reflections of the opinion of their group), other people are wrong, and other people desperately need to hear what they think, whether they want to or not. There’s little point in talking to idiots, or people acting like an idiot.

Everyone acts like an idiot, every now and again. But, for many, being an idiot is a calling. The goal is promotion of the partisan, whether it is true or not. Although, many of these partisans are true believers, even if what they believe isn’t true.

The sanest strategy is not to get in the business of programming others and to try to avoid other people programming you. Avoid discussions of this sort, unless you deeply care for someone and feel an obligation to help pull them from the path they have chosen. Just be careful to give higher regard for your relationship rather than to your ideas.

If you eliminate those types of discussions, what’s left? Let’s assume we are contemplating an open ended discussion as a process for the discovery of the truth.

  • Why engage in a process like this one?
  • Who should we have these discussion with?
  • How should we do it?

Sometimes talking our ideas through with someone else helps us to develop them, particularly if that person disagrees with us. It allow us to confront problems or aspects of a problem we might not have considered otherwise.

But, our feelings about the other person are key. While it is possible to have civil discourse with people we don’t like, it’s best to have these discussions with people we know and like. If you don’t know or like someone, you are going to be less open to what they are saying. It becomes easier to become partisan or be contrary in a way that blocks a useful exchange of ideas.

What is useful discourse? Paul Graham has a helpful essay, “How to Disagree,” that talks about a hierarchy of disagreement:

  • DH0: Name-calling
  • DH1: Ad hominem, personal attacks.
  • DH2: Responding to tone
  • DH3: Contradiction
  • DH4: Counterargument
  • DH5: Refutation
  • DH6: Refuting the central point

If most of the discussion is equal to or less than DH3, it probably indicates that it isn’t useful. We can safely avoid conversations that drop down to these levels or we believe will quickly devolve into them.

In sum, we know what good discussions look like. If you don’t care for the person and there’s no forward progress to be made, end it. As an act of kindness, let them have the last word. It’s trying to get the last word the prolongs conversations that are better off dead.

There’s More in the Mortar Than the Pestle

Mazeways, reality range and glowing red                                                                            
rat cunning, invention of engines, fuels,
tanks full of the stored fat of bloodshed,
machine-shaped, faceted 3D printed jewels.

Factories of fascism, launching rockets
on the ecliptic, living within the lie,
full manifests of memes and dockets,
launch determines orbit, STANDBY.

Red glare, the bombs bursting in air
48 hour screams, a pounding earthshake,
an evil tongue commentariat billionaire
declares, "All news I don't like is fake."

Idemopotence: same action, same result.
Nesting doll of lost futures, a relic
of an afterlife and the future cult,
merely breathing in the psychedelic.

There's more in the mortar
than the pestle will say,
what's real, what's fake,
what's in-between in the grey.

Why Fiction Trumps Truth

“When it comes to uniting people around a common story, fiction actually enjoys three inherent advantages over the truth. First, whereas the truth is universal, fictions tend to be local. Consequently if we want to distinguish our tribe from foreigners, a fictional story will serve as a far better identity marker than a true story…

…The second huge advantage of fiction over truth has to do with the handicap principle, which says that reliable signals must be costly to the signaler. Otherwise, they can easily be faked by cheaters…

…Third, and most important, the truth is often painful and disturbing. Hence if you stick to unalloyed reality, few people will follow you.”

—Yuval Noah Harari, “Why Fiction Trumps Truth.” The New York Times. May 24, 2019.

Thinking Itself Is Dangerous – Los Angeles Review of Books

“Just as terror, even in its pre-total, merely tyrannical form ruins all relationships between men, so the self-compulsion of ideological thinking ruins all relationships with reality. The preparation has succeeded when people have lost contact with their fellow men as well as the reality around them, for together with these contacts, men lose the capacity of both experience and thought. The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.”

Ideological thinking forecloses our ability to discern by flattening the plurality of the human condition, destroying our ability to distinguish between fact and fiction, right and wrong.”

—Samantha Hill, “Thinking Itself is Dangerous.” Los Angeles Review of Books. October 22, 2018.

Review of Hannah Arendt’s Thinking Without a Bannister. The idea for the title is quoted within the article:

“I have a metaphor which is not quite that cruel, and which I never published but kept for myself. I call it thinking without a banister. In German, “Denken ohne Geländer.” That is, as you go up and down the stairs you can always hold on to the banister so that you don’t fall down. But we have lost this banister. That is the way I tell it to myself. And this is indeed what I try to do.”

—Hannah Arendt, quoted in ibid.

The Uselessness of Discussion to Find Truth

“‘Every philosopher runs away when he or she hears say ‘Let’s discuss this.’ Discussion, they claimed ‘are fine for roundabout talks, but philosophy throws its dice on another table. The best one can say about discussions is that they take things no farther, since the participants never talk about the same thing.’”

—Gilles Deleuze and Felix Guattari quoted in Richard Marshall, “HowTheLightGetsIn Festival, London 2018,” 3:AM Magazine. October 14, 2018.

Discussion is about building relationships and expressing our feelings. A discussion creates the bonds that bind a social set or tribe. It’s expressing an agreed upon shared truth and signals belonging, or not.

Even if we are expressing a personal truth, it is a small part of it. The personal truth worth hearing is often the secret we keep to ourselves. Speaking it to another would wound our self-conception and social standing. Typically, we only share the part that enhances those things.

We are rarely interested in hearing another’s truth, much less be changed by it because the truth shared by “discussion” is rarely worth hearing.

The New Age of Bullshit

A definition and a theory of bullshit, which Frankfurt broadened into a book length treatment, is a very helpful place to go to make sense of our modern social environment.

“Bullshit is speech intended to persuade without regard for truth. The liar cares about the truth and attempts to hide it; the bullshitter doesn’t care if what they say is true or false, but rather only cares whether or not their listener is persuaded.”

What is advertising, if not bullshit? Truth is irrelevant. The only thing that is relevant is whether an ad gets the audience to buy the product. “Good” advertising is about creating stories, packaging them into a “brand”, and getting people to identify with that brand.

Advertising is at the center of most of the technology platforms of the feudal internet. Increase your followers, your likes, your comments, and you too could make a living creating “content” that attracts followers, likes and comments. The feudal internet uses your “content” to sell products and to the small degree you aid this endeavor, you can get a kickback on the profits. The variations are infinite: Instagram accounts with product placements, blogs with sponsors, and so forth and so on. But, in the end, it is all the same.

Advertising is an insidious influence. Not only is it bullshit. It pulls people into thinking and living lives that are bullshit. Even reactions to the consumerist vision of our society are steeped in bullshit.

Consider “New Age” religious and spiritual beliefs. They are new beliefs that are sold like a product. I recently came across the website, Ascension Glossary, which has a Where Can I Start? page, that advocates educating yourself about Mind Control:

Mind Control is used to form socially acceptable belief systems and shape value systems to which are used to control the masses to enslave themselves on planet earth. God, Religious Violence, gender issues, financial and debt enslavement, Consumptive Modeling, Misogyny and sexuality are the most mind controlled and manipulated belief systems promoted by the NAA and their human Power Elite to continue their enslavement and vampirism of humanity and planetary resources.”

They are talking about bullshit. So, they’ve at least identified the problem.

But, it’s not just the dominate narrative that is riddled with mind control and false beliefs. We must also “Discern False New Age Channeling or Modalities or Presumed Authority that want to take your Power or Manipulate through Lower Emotional States. Avoid New Age Material Hijacked with Vampirism or Cult mentality.”

In other words, don’t replace mainstream bullshit with other bullshit. Pretty sound advice. Of course, the problem here is that it is hard not to review the material of Ascension Glossary and not come to the conclusion that the ideas and techniques recommended are also a form of bullshit. Truth, lies and cockamamy ideas about extra-terrestrial global minds and guardians are not an obvious improvement over the mainstream narrative.

May I suggest, if you feel the need to believe in New Age bullshit, that you randomly generate some beliefs using a computer algorithm using New Age tropes and choose a few ideas that appeal to you.

New Age Bullshit Generator

http://sebpearce.com/bullshit/

Example output:

  • The goal of ultra-sentient particles is to plant the seeds of purpose rather than discontinuity.
  • This life is nothing short of an unfolding paradigm shift of high-frequency fulfillment. By awakening, we heal.
  • The biosphere is approaching a tipping point.
  • Who are we? Where on the great story will we be re-energized? We are at a crossroads of potentiality and bondage. Humankind has nothing to lose.
  • We must develop ourselves and heal others. We must learn how to lead infinite lives in the face of selfishness. It is in invocation that we are re-energized.
  • Curiosity requires exploration. Consciousness consists of sonar energy of quantum energy. “Quantum” means a refining of the karmic. We exist as electromagnetic resonance.
  • You and I are travellers of the dreamscape.
  • Have you found your journey? If you have never experienced this paradigm shift inherent in nature, it can be difficult to exist. Indigo Child, look within and strengthen yourself.
  • Throughout history, humans have been interacting with the quantum matrix via electromagnetic resonance. Reality has always been beaming with adventurers whose auras are opened by intuition. Our conversations with other lifeforms have led to an evolving of ultra-cosmic consciousness.

The Problem With Talking, Illustrated Via The Law Enforcement Interview

“You, dear readers, know my advice about talking to the FBI: don’t. If the FBI — or any law enforcement agency — asks to talk to you, say ‘No, I want to talk to my lawyer, I don’t want to talk to you,’ and repeat as necessary. Do not talk to them ‘just to see what they want.’ Do not try to ‘set the facts straight.’ Do not try to outwit them. Do not explain that you have ‘nothing to hide.’

Shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up, shut up…”

—Ken White, “Everybody Lies: FBI Edition.” Popehat.com. December 4, 2017.

The key point is that our communication styles and habitual ways of thinking do not line up well when the focus becomes capital T “Truth”. We’re fallible human beings that frequently do not know the truth about ourselves, the world around us or even the truth about all the relevant context of events in which we take part.

Imagine, for example, the CIA operative that was involved in clandestine operations in South American countries in the 1980’s. Should this person be teaching college-level history courses based on their subject knowledge, particularly because they are acquainted with what was happening “behind the scenes”? Or, does his subjective experience compomise his ability to convey the truth in a more complete way?

I’d argue being involved in something compromises both our ability to explicitly know the truth of it, and there is also always an implicit knowledge informing our understanding that we cannot communicate in an explicit way that makes all communication false on some level. 

In most social circumstances, this ambiguity and imprecision helps us all get along, allowing us to rationalize or interpret things how we wish. But, in the context of a law enforcement interview, this flexibility is how cases are built against people.

Fewer Opinions

“We have a staggering arrogance in our own belief. That can be tempered by not being 100% certain; by being provisional. No matter what the debate is, very few people have the modesty to suspend judgement on a whole range of things; most intelligent people have an opinion and are expected to have an opinion by other people – but it always requires making a personal judgement that goes way-beyond your expertise. We do it all the time.

It would be good if we were encouraged to have fewer opinions. To be more willing to say ‘I just don’t know’. Sure, sometimes you have to come down one way or another for practical matters – but being aware that that’s the case is enough.

For example, let’s say I want to take a view about whether I need to lose weight or not. There’s conflicting advice on this. I can suspend judgement – but that would be burying my head in the sand. I come to a judgement based on my very imperfect knowledge of the science. I have to do that – but it doesn’t mean that, in doing so, I have the right answer. I just think: ‘it’s the way it seems; it’s the best judgement I can make; it could be wrong. Fingers crossed!’”

—Julian Baggini, “Baggini’s Consolations For A Post-Truth World.” 3:AM Magazine. November 11, 2017.

Truth & Revelation

“People’s interest in the truth is often a concern not with facts but with their meanings. The truth in a portrait, for example, is not necessarily a matter of realistic fidelity. It is rather about capturing something in the sitter that a more physically accurate picture or photograph could miss. This idea is captured in Picasso’s famous aphorism ‘Art is a lie that makes us realize truth’. This kind of truth is often explicitly contrasted with the factual variety. ‘There is a distinction between fact and truth’, claimed Lucian Freud. ‘Truth has an element of revelation about it. If something is true, it does more than strike one as merely being so.’ Freud’s definitions may not match those of philosophers, but his point is clear enough. The kind of truth that concerns him is that which reveals the hidden meaning of things, not facts one could look up in a reference book.”

— Julian Baggini, “Truth? It’s not just about the facts.The Times Literary Supplement. September 21, 2017.