Ships in Horrible Storms

[Ashvin]

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

It could be thought of as being unable to mediate eruptions from the unconscious during our waking consciousness. Normally we all have these eruptions during our dreams, or with fits of passion during our waking consciousness (which is why we have legal categories like manslaughter, killing in the "heat of rage"). Going mad to the point of sensory "delusions" could be like dreaming while you are awake with no control over it.

This is more or less what schizophrenia amounts to, I think.......when the dreams that are a normal part of sleeping life, arising out of a free-associating subconscious mind......bleed over Into waking life, and the victim can no longer tell them apart.....which can also occur when people take psychedelic drugs......which is what makes them dangerous for some people who are more susceptible.

This probably happens more than we acknowledge......it's only when someone's life is affected in ways that make it unmanageable....that it gets diagnosed and treated.

Yes and I would add that this seems to get worse when one tries to resist the natural expressions of the unconscious mind instead of accepting it and letting it express itself. There is a lot of wisdom and practical solutions to problems to find in our dreams.

Hypnagogic experiences are something we can all easily access to experience how this state may feel when it is properly balanced with our waking mode of consciousness. Next time you are falling asleep, try to take hold of and remember those experiences which occur when you are still half awake.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

Jietze "descended into madness"?  What is madness anyhow?

RE

It could be thought of as being unable to mediate eruptions from the unconscious during our waking consciousness. Normally we all have these eruptions during our dreams, or with fits of passion during our waking consciousness (which is why we have legal categories like manslaughter, killing in the "heat of rage"). Going mad to the point of sensory "delusions" could be like dreaming while you are awake with no control over it.

This is more or less what schizophrenia amounts to, I think.......when the dreams that are a normal part of sleeping life, arising out of a free-associating subconscious mind......bleed over Into waking life, and the victim can no longer tell them apart.....which can also occur when people take psychedelic drugs......which is what makes them dangerous for some people who are more susceptible.

This probably happens more than we acknowledge......it's only when someone's life is affected in ways that make it unmanageable....that it gets diagnosed and treated.

There are 3 subcategories of schizophrenia. Catatonic, Disorganised, and Paranoid.

I don't know whether witnessing a horse beating or auditory-visual hallucinations triggered Nietzsche going over the edge, but he was not well adjusted prior and that comes through in the writing which is over-arching negativity. Although research shows pessimists are more realistic than optimists, within limits, it doesn't apply to theories of everything. I suspect a sensitive soul with a very intelligent but over active mind, moved steadily into hopelessness.

• Tweet

[RE]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

The ideologies come after.  People tend to be very amenable with full bellies.  All the ideologies do is give you a reason to kill somebody else.

RE

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Bringing this back to the original question of the upcoming US presidential election, I want to know what possible defense there is for this:

https://taibbi.substack.com/p/with-the-hunter-biden-expose-suppression-136

Unprecedented efforts to squelch information about a New York Post story may prove to be more dangerous corruption than whatever Hunter Biden did with a crooked Ukrainian energy company
Matt Taibbi

The flow of information in the United States has become so politicized – bottlenecked by an increasingly brazen union of corporate press and tech platforms – that it’s become impossible for American audiences to see news about certain topics absent thickets of propagandistic contextualizing. Try to look up anything about Burisma, Joe Biden, or Hunter Biden in English, however, and you’re likely to be shown a pile of “fact-checks” and explainers ahead of the raw information...

The flow of information in the United States has become so politicized – bottlenecked by an increasingly brazen union of corporate press and tech platforms – that it’s become impossible for American audiences to see news about certain topics absent thickets of propagandistic contextualizing. Try to look up anything about Burisma, Joe Biden, or Hunter Biden in English, however, and you’re likely to be shown a pile of “fact-checks” and explainers ahead of the raw information:

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

The ideologies come after.  People tend to be very amenable with full bellies.  All the ideologies do is give you a reason to kill somebody else.

RE

True, no one is going to fight a large scale war over ideologies if they are all starving. But once a civilization reaches a certain level of material stability,  and a certain mode of scientific rationalist thinking, ideologies are the only things that will possess them to risk all out destruction. That is what we saw during the Cold War with episodes like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Our human need to defend our convenient yet fictional narratives of the world against any and all challengers is only a little less fundamental (in an evolutionary sense) than our need to satisfy basic biological needs. Our minds are built to tell itself deceptive stories about reality, because this gives some people (our ancestors) a huge competitive advantage over others in a selective ecosystem.

You could even argue that it's more fundamental, because it organizes the world in way that makes it much easier to satisfy those basic needs. Check out Donald Hoffman's "Interface Theory of Perception", which he has proved using mathematically rigorous and precise evolutionary game theoretical simulations. He shows that space-time and matter itself is a "story" that our species (and presumably many others) constructs to this end.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

The ideologies come after.  People tend to be very amenable with full bellies.  All the ideologies do is give you a reason to kill somebody else.

RE

True, no one is going to fight a large scale war over ideologies if they are all starving. But once a civilization reaches a certain level of material stability,  and a certain mode of scientific rationalist thinking, ideologies are the only things that will possess them to risk all out destruction. That is what we saw during the Cold War with episodes like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Our human need to defend our convenient yet fictional narratives of the world against any and all challengers is only a little less fundamental (in an evolutionary sense) than our need to satisfy basic biological needs. Our minds are built to tell itself deceptive stories about reality, because this gives some people (our ancestors) a huge competitive advantage over others in a selective ecosystem.

You could even argue that it's more fundamental, because it organizes the world in way that makes it much easier to satisfy those basic needs. Check out Donald Hoffman's "Interface Theory of Perception", which he has proved using mathematically rigorous and precise evolutionary game theoretical simulations. He shows that space-time and matter itself is a "story" that our species (and presumably many others) constructs to this end.

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

The ideologies come after.  People tend to be very amenable with full bellies.  All the ideologies do is give you a reason to kill somebody else.

RE

True, no one is going to fight a large scale war over ideologies if they are all starving. But once a civilization reaches a certain level of material stability,  and a certain mode of scientific rationalist thinking, ideologies are the only things that will possess them to risk all out destruction. That is what we saw during the Cold War with episodes like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Our human need to defend our convenient yet fictional narratives of the world against any and all challengers is only a little less fundamental (in an evolutionary sense) than our need to satisfy basic biological needs. Our minds are built to tell itself deceptive stories about reality, because this gives some people (our ancestors) a huge competitive advantage over others in a selective ecosystem.

You could even argue that it's more fundamental, because it organizes the world in way that makes it much easier to satisfy those basic needs. Check out Donald Hoffman's "Interface Theory of Perception", which he has proved using mathematically rigorous and precise evolutionary game theoretical simulations. He shows that space-time and matter itself is a "story" that our species (and presumably many others) constructs to this end.

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to. All I need to show is that, after the revolutions (and democratic election of Hitler), ideological commitment/possession was necessary to maintain their brutal, dehumanizing policies at such a large scale.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

Wars aren't fought for 'rationalist ideologies".  They are fought for access to resources.

RE

That is the materialist view and I disagree. Material resources of course factor in, but the most brutal wars of the last 500 years or so have been primarily about ideologies. Religious and secular ones.

The ideologies come after.  People tend to be very amenable with full bellies.  All the ideologies do is give you a reason to kill somebody else.

RE

True, no one is going to fight a large scale war over ideologies if they are all starving. But once a civilization reaches a certain level of material stability,  and a certain mode of scientific rationalist thinking, ideologies are the only things that will possess them to risk all out destruction. That is what we saw during the Cold War with episodes like the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Our human need to defend our convenient yet fictional narratives of the world against any and all challengers is only a little less fundamental (in an evolutionary sense) than our need to satisfy basic biological needs. Our minds are built to tell itself deceptive stories about reality, because this gives some people (our ancestors) a huge competitive advantage over others in a selective ecosystem.

You could even argue that it's more fundamental, because it organizes the world in way that makes it much easier to satisfy those basic needs. Check out Donald Hoffman's "Interface Theory of Perception", which he has proved using mathematically rigorous and precise evolutionary game theoretical simulations. He shows that space-time and matter itself is a "story" that our species (and presumably many others) constructs to this end.

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to. All I need to show is that, after the revolutions (and democratic election of Hitler), ideological commitment/possession was necessary to maintain their brutal, dehumanizing policies at such a large scale.

What was the ideology of the participants in Milgrams and Shachters experiments? Those being explicitly designed to explain the actions of the little cogs and foot soldiers under the Nazis, as if a bullet in the back were not enough.

You're an American so your foreign and domestic policies must all be your ideology, right?

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to. All I need to show is that, after the revolutions (and democratic election of Hitler), ideological commitment/possession was necessary to maintain their brutal, dehumanizing policies at such a large scale.

What was the ideology of the participants in Milgrams and Shachters experiments? Those being explicitly designed to explain the actions of the little cogs and foot soldiers under the Nazis, as if a bullet in the back were not enough.

You're an American so your foreign and domestic policies must all be your ideology, right?

The experiments which showed how cruel people can be to others when socially pressured by a perceived source of authority? That is almost the definition of ideological possession (especially when the source of authority is an all-encompassing complex of ideas). How do they support the "material hardship" explanation?

• Tweet

[RE]

This probably happens more than we acknowledge......it's only when someone's life is affected in ways that make it unmanageable....that it gets diagnosed and treated.

My life has become unmanageable.  I must have gone mad.  I am done Diners.  I won't see Xmas,  with or without the leg.

RE

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to. All I need to show is that, after the revolutions (and democratic election of Hitler), ideological commitment/possession was necessary to maintain their brutal, dehumanizing policies at such a large scale.

What was the ideology of the participants in Milgrams and Shachters experiments? Those being explicitly designed to explain the actions of the little cogs and foot soldiers under the Nazis, as if a bullet in the back were not enough.

You're an American so your foreign and domestic policies must all be your ideology, right?

The experiments which showed how cruel people can be to others when socially pressured by a perceived source of authority? That is almost the definition of ideological possession (especially when the source of authority is an all-encompassing complex of ideas). How do they support the "material hardship" explanation?

Again, what are these all encompassing ideas at play?

I take it as a yes on ideological support of US foreign and domestic policy. We are voting for the man who increased the MIC budget 25% on day 1 after all.

 In any case you now need to explain how social pressure, authority and an all encompassing system was absent  for subjects/serfs prior to the materialist nihilism of the enlightenment.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

It was the hardships of the onerous reparations and hyperinflation in Weimar Germany horse that went before the Hitler cart. It was the indifference to suffering of the French horse by Mary Antionette that was followed by the guillotine cart. Romanov Tsar's indifference to Russian suffering, again came before the revolution. You should look into the collapse of the Songhai Empire through endless war. Identify an ideology in any of that bloodbath. They were very wealthy and comfortable with hot and cold running gold.

I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to. All I need to show is that, after the revolutions (and democratic election of Hitler), ideological commitment/possession was necessary to maintain their brutal, dehumanizing policies at such a large scale.

What was the ideology of the participants in Milgrams and Shachters experiments? Those being explicitly designed to explain the actions of the little cogs and foot soldiers under the Nazis, as if a bullet in the back were not enough.

You're an American so your foreign and domestic policies must all be your ideology, right?

The experiments which showed how cruel people can be to others when socially pressured by a perceived source of authority? That is almost the definition of ideological possession (especially when the source of authority is an all-encompassing complex of ideas). How do they support the "material hardship" explanation?

Again, what are these all encompassing ideas at play?

Marxism is an all-encompassing set of ideas - it purports to explain all of human history through the dialectic of class struggle (historical materialism) and also predicts a utopian form of socioeconomic relations. Ideologies do not need to be all-encompassing in this same way, but they undeniably became this way.

Also, what is your explanation for the fact that the Milgram experiment, which you brought up, undermines your material hardship explanation of 20th century atrocities?

I take it as a yes on ideological support of US foreign and domestic policy. We are voting for the man who increased the MIC budget 25% on day 1 after all.

I would evaluate those policies on a case by case basis and try not to color my perceptions of them by a priori ideas about the nature of reality or what's "good" and "evil" (even though this is much easier said than done, and to some extent impossible).

And, no, I don't think increasing the military budget by 25% was or is a good policy. I also think Obama started more wars and left more US troops on foreign soil than Trump, who has started no wars and reduced troops. Trump also managed to convince Israel and several MENA countries to reach a peace deal just recently. I don't have any confidence that Biden can do the same or that the deals already struck will even be finalized or remain in place if he is elected.

In any case you now need to explain how social pressure, authority and an all encompassing system was absent  for subjects/serfs prior to the materialist nihilism of the enlightenment.

Why would I need explain why those things were absent? Remember, I'm not the one who thinks material hardships are a sufficient explanation for any large scale conflicts, at any time in human history.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

Did you forget your acknowledgement that ideology is only the perpetuating factor for 20 th C atrocities and not the cause of any regime coming to power?

You would have us believe that the participants and organisers of Milgrams and schacters experiments were Marxists now.

I'm sure you decide on a case by case basis not to protest any policy and pay tax for all of them.

You say rationalist nihilist ideology explains the actions of 20th C regimes actions only after they come to power because hardship does explain their coming to power. You say this is defined as social pressure, authority and a power structure having nothing to do with Marxism or fascism. It follows that unless there was no power structure, authority, or social pressure, prior to the advent of materialist nihilism, there was no difference in motivation to do anything for either good king Arthur or glorious comrade Stalin. Rationalist nihilist ideology doesn't explain either the introduction or continuation of any govt then.

• Tweet

[Phil Rumpole]

Anyway at least we have an answer on the ideology supported. Zionism.

• Tweet

[Ashvin]

Did you forget your acknowledgement that ideology is only the perpetuating factor for 20 th C atrocities and not the cause of any regime coming to power?

You would have us believe that the participants and organisers of Milgrams and schacters experiments were Marxists now.

I'm sure you decide on a case by case basis not to protest any policy and pay tax for all of them.

You say rationalist nihilist ideology explains the actions of 20th C regimes actions only after they come to power because hardship does explain their coming to power. You say this is defined as social pressure, authority and a power structure having nothing to do with Marxism or fascism. It follows that unless there was no power structure, authority, or social pressure, prior to the advent of materialist nihilism, there was no difference in motivation to do anything for either good king Arthur or glorious comrade Stalin. Rationalist nihilist ideology doesn't explain either the introduction or continuation of any govt then.

No, I clearly said "I don't agree that material hardships can adequately explain any of the above mentioned, but I don't need to". Go back and read the post.

If you are not going to read and accurately represent my statement, or say silly things like my ideology is "Zionism", then there is no point discussing this further because you are not acting in good faith.

• Tweet