May 032012
 
 May 3, 2012  Posted by at 5:26 pm Finance

Sorry for the dearth of commentaries as of late – I have been out of town with limited access to the internet. Right now, I am pleased to present an article by Peter of the Doomstead Diner about the intersection of what we believe is our personal "intuition" and what may actually be subconscious or "subliminal" coercion from our surrounding environment. Ilargi will be posting a feature article soon, so I am making this into a commentary, even though it is more than worthy of a feature spot!

 


 

RE: Intuition

 

INTUITION  in·tu·i·tion/ˌint(y)o͞oˈiSHən/
Noun:
The ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.
A thing that one knows or considers likely from instinctive feeling rather than conscious reasoning.

SUBLIMINAL sub·lim·i·nal [suhb-lim-uh-nl] Show IPA
adjective Psychology .
existing or operating below the threshold of consciousness; being or employing stimuli insufficiently intense to produce a discrete sensation but often being or designed to be intense enough to influence the mental processes or the behavior of the individual: a subliminal stimulus; subliminal advertising.

Do you notice the similarity in definitions between intuition and subliminal?

Do both result in making decisions without conscious thought?

How can we tell the difference between intuitively making a decision and making a decision based on subliminally suggestive ideas/objects placed into our environment to elicit a specific reaction?

Wikipedia has a good collection of different definitions for intuition and also suggests some of the origins – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intuition_%28psychology%29

It is often suggested that intuition is based on subliminal knowledge that we hold within our genetic makeup which retains information about important situations experienced by our ancestors, and also by ourselves.

To me this type of intuition is very dangerous as it is based on conditioning and equivalent to mindlessly following the directives of outside forces.

Here is an impressive example of blatantly employing such a strategy to get a specific result.

 

 

In a natural setting intuition is a very valuable tool that allows us to respond quickly without thought to dangerous situations based on similar experiences had by our ancestors. However such instinctual reactions are very dangerous within our society because there is a small elitist group determined to control the actions of the massive majority that they cannot control by force by using subliminal conditioning.

CONDITION Train or accustom (someone or something) to behave in a certain way or to accept certain circumstances
– we have all been conditioned to the conventional format of TV
– the child is conditioned to dislike food
– the program examines aspects of social conditioning

The Elite have expended enormous resources to learn how to influence our actions subliminally because many of the things they desire to condition us to would likely be rejected if we used logic to determine our actions.

Playlist of videos regarding subliminal conditioning.

The Wilhelm Reich book, "The Function of the Orgasm", which I keep mentioning details how the very structure of our families was manipulated to create people who could be known to respond in specific ways to subliminal cues which can be successfully activated many years later and throughout our whole lifetime.

A very blatant example that affects almost all of us is that we have allowed our leaders to rape and pillage without consciously saying, "yes I agree with this". We may not like what they do but we have let them get away with it. Why? I say because there were many subtle conditioning experiences placed throughout our lives that make us submit to authority figures. Many of us are now struggling to overcome this conditioning but the vast majority are still in thrall to their masters.

To me making a decision without knowing why I made it is suspect. I now attempt to apply logic to such intuitive ideas and also do research to see if they make sense before acting on them.

There is another sense that has similarities to intuition in that it accesses information below the conscious level. The difference is that although the process itself is unconscious the process is consciously initiated.

To limit our access to information within our physical reality, which is manipulated by the elite to give them dominance, our conscious level of thought is trained to reject all information that is not physically sense-able within our environment. This means our consciousness is tuned to one carrier wave/program/reality which is controllable by the elite.

Without this conditioning we would discover that our consciousness can be tuned at will to a limitless number of carriers/programs/realities many of which do not include a controlling elite.

More broadly… once this conditioning is broken it is possible to perceive the environment that ALL the broadcasts exist within without being tuned to any specific broadcast. In this sentient mode beyond the conscious/unconscious divide, there is available all information at once and information gained there is based on the full body of all information not just information that is based on one genetic program.

What initially differentiates this process from normal intuition is the 'INTENT' to seek this information. When the process is successful the information arrives 'intuitively' (without thought) into your consciousness, but results from previous 'intent'. It is not information that appears in your consciousness without known 'reason'.

The way I initially taught myself to access this place was only accessible when I was extremely well rested and calm. Such conditions are rare while we are stuck on the treadmill of trying to keep up with the status quo. This treadmill is no accident. A big part of our induced lifestyle is the intent to keep us so frazzled that we can't 'think'(?) clearly or well. It is a primary reason for getting off the treadmill.

I experimented for a number of years with the sleep state. When well rested I would attempt to enter the sleep state while remaining conscious with the intent to find specific pieces of information. This intent when executed successfully takes you into a totally different place than normal sleep. If you have dreams, even very lucid ones, you are in the normal sleep state, not in the state needed to access all information.

For a long time I didn't realize I had arrived in this other place. Although I was aware, I appeared to be in a black void of nothingness. There appeared to be no detail of any kind. Surprisingly even though the experience seemed undifferentiated nothingness, the answer I sought would pop into my consciousness instantaneously at/near the point of awakening.

To get into this space requires being aware enough to sidestep into this space at the instant you transition from waking to sleep mode. There is a tiny instant when you can step into greater consciousness. If you are too tired or stressed out it is impossible to concentrate well enough to accomplish this.

After spending much time there it becomes possible to perceive detail(?) there.

After much time you also come to understand that that mode of sentience can be accessed directly even while physically conscious.

To describe that experience and the structure(?) of that reality is probably not possible within words. It is a completely different way of being aware. It is not based on localized individuality or personality. There is no ego there. You just are 'everything'.

Peter

Home Forums RE: Intuition

This topic contains 0 replies, has 0 voices, and was last updated by  Raúl Ilargi Meijer 7 years, 4 months ago.

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)
  • Author
    Posts
  • #8545

    Sorry for the dearth of commentaries as of late – I have been out of town with limited access to the internet. Right now, I am pleased to present an a
    [See the full post at: RE: Intuition]

    #2987

    pipefit
    Participant

    I think maybe you have spent too much time reading Carlos Casteneda books, lol.

    You do make some valid points. Specifically, I would ask, what do you think is the point of the masters providing us this internet? Certainly it is the medium whereby we willingly divulge our every hope, dream, desire, flaw, and danger to the ruling oligarchy.

    If you agree, then don’t you think the whole point of these ‘off mainstream’ web sites gets a bit catch 22ish awfully fast. Get it?

    If Anyone, such as Automatic Earth, wasn’t doing the bidding of the masters, or at least harmless, then the plug would pulled by the powers that be, correct?

    So we have this absurd juxtaposition whereby the web is filled with these ‘anti-establishment’ sites that can’t possibly be onto the real deal, or the monolithic state would have shut them down on whatever pretext, if the ‘evil state’ theory is true.

    If you start with the assertion that the ‘evil state/Rothchild/Bildeberger/yadaYada’ is true, and you are the one true voice that knows the score and what to do to defeat them, the last thing you want to do is post on the web.

    #2988

    pipefit post=2600 wrote: I think maybe you have spent too much time reading Carlos Casteneda books, lol.

    You do make some valid points. Specifically, I would ask, what do you think is the point of the masters providing us this internet? Certainly it is the medium whereby we willingly divulge our every hope, dream, desire, flaw, and danger to the ruling oligarchy.

    If you agree, then don’t you think the whole point of these ‘off mainstream’ web sites gets a bit catch 22ish awfully fast. Get it?

    If Anyone, such as Automatic Earth, wasn’t doing the bidding of the masters, or at least harmless, then the plug would pulled by the powers that be, correct?

    So we have this absurd juxtaposition whereby the web is filled with these ‘anti-establishment’ sites that can’t possibly be onto the real deal, or the monolithic state would have shut them down on whatever pretext, if the ‘evil state’ theory is true.

    If you start with the assertion that the ‘evil state/Rothchild/Bildeberger/yadaYada’ is true, and you are the one true voice that knows the score and what to do to defeat them, the last thing you want to do is post on the web.

    I don’t think Peter has ever made the case that he is the one true voice that knows the score. He does often make the case though that it is difficult for anyone to filter the wheat from the chaff and find the truth.

    As far as the Illuminati are concerned and the level of control they have, it would be more an aggregate issue of statistics in the case of media outlets of any kind. All that is necessary here is to provide the illusion of free flow of information, while making sure the preponderance of people follow a particular set of mainstream beliefs. Everybody else can be written off as a Wingnut.

    So I have no immediate fears that the Ford LTDs and Black Vans are going to show up at the Cabin and give me a First Class Ticket to GITMO. Even if we have every last detail of History nailed here, it doesn’t matter at all with a few thousand page hits a day, and frankly probably even 1M page hits a day. There probably will come a time in the not too distant future where the Internet overall is not serving as a good control conduit and will be shut down or altered. There are also the energy issues involved in keeping it running which likely give it a limited lifespan here. At least that is my viewpoint on it, since I am not one of the Zero Point energy enthusiasts currently eating at the Diner.

    Anyhow, your Catch-22 issue doesn’t really exist here, its a straw man argument. Peter has a particular perspective that centers on Spirituality, which is a good thing overall. Besides that, he is a KICK ASS web developer, even a better thing as far as the Diner is concerned. LOL.

    RE
    https://www.doomsteaddiner.com

    #2989

    ben
    Member

    If you agree, then don’t you think the whole point of these ‘off mainstream’ web sites gets a bit catch 22ish awfully fast. Get it?

    pipefit. correct me if i’m wrong, but i expect you’ve been lugging around your condescension towards castaneda for decades. you ever consider putting down the baggage?

    that said, what about the internet as a double-edged sword?

    as i recall, peter and el gallinazo, at last count over on DD, disagreed on this idea, with el gallinazo in the ‘for’ camp and peter in the ‘against.’ peter being of the mind that its control function far outweighs its revolutionary potential.

    #2991

    pipefit
    Participant

    RE said, “There probably will come a time in the not too distant future where the Internet overall is not serving as a good control conduit and will be shut down or altered. There are also the energy issues involved in keeping it running which likely give it a limited lifespan here..”

    You don’t understand the purpose of the internet. It’s purpose is to gather information on us. All of us. It is not replaceable. Mighty cost effective too. It pays for itself with side uses: selling junk that helps to run up debt, lol.

    “Anyhow, your Catch-22 issue doesn’t really exist here..”
    I agree that the ‘self reliance’ theme here is entertaining and agreeable (to me), but it has been around for eons, and is no threat to the evil ones, whoever they are. I was speaking generally.

    If ‘they’ have an Achilles heel, you won’t read about it on the internet. That is the catch 22. Kind of like those big rock festivals of the late ’60s. If you remember it, you weren’t there, lol.

    Getting back the OP’s message on subliminal stuff, the anti-Romney stuff during the primary wasn’t really that subtle. You understood what was going on, I assume. That was part of Obama’s reelection campaign. Newt, Santorum, Cain, etc never were serious candidates. The hidden message is that he isn’t ‘one of us’.

    The people running the show, behind the scenes, absolutely adore Barrack, and he’s gonna get reelected. Period. Did you notice how, once Romney virtually clinched the Republican nomination, the media, including mainstream sites on the web, were given permission to mention Ron Paul’s name, lol?

    #2992

    pipefit
    Participant

    Ben said, “pipefit. correct me if i’m wrong, but i expect you’ve been lugging around your condescenCheneysion towards castaneda for decades. you ever consider putting down the baggage?”

    Gawd, Ben, are you ever horrible at reading people. Castaneda is my favorite author. As usual, the original is so much better. This is one thing about the web that really bothers me. Folks copy sheeit, almost word for word, without any attribution.

    “peter being of the mind that its control function far outweighs its revolutionary potential.”
    Duh, by several orders of magnitude. By posting a few photos on facebook, they’ve got you completely figured out, down to the nitty gritty. Think how easy it is going to be for them to confiscate the peoples’ gold, should they decide to do so. I’m just hoping they decide to let the price run up a couple more thousand dollars per ounce before pulling the trigger.

    #2994

    ben
    Member

    pipefit post=2605 wrote: Gawd, Ben, are you ever horrible at reading people. Castaneda is my favorite author. As usual, the original is so much better. This is one thing about the web that really bothers me. Folks copy sheeit, almost word for word, without any attribution.

    oh, i see. it’s not anti-casteneda baggage. it’s intellectual property baggage.

    peter being of the mind that its control function far outweighs its revolutionary potential.”
    Duh, by several orders of magnitude. By posting a few photos on facebook, they’ve got you completely figured out, down to the nitty gritty. Think how easy it is going to be for them to confiscate the peoples’ gold, should they decide to do so. I’m just hoping they decide to let the price run up a couple more thousand dollars per ounce before pulling the trigger.

    you better hope, too, that that black (unreported) gold stays black. cash is king.

    #2995

    Andee
    Member

    Greetings Peter if you’re reading these comments. I thought I was alone. Over the years I have developed the ability to spend time at will on the conscious/subconscious divide that you so clearly describe. What a revelation this is. Very interesting. I will be exploring your further offerings.

    #3000

    David Peter
    Member

    I am a student of mimetic realism (René Girard) and the science of mirror neurons. Thanks for submitting this article about intuition. imho, human beings are the keenest of imitators. Many of the issues raised above point to the fact that, for the most part, I am unaware of the models I am imitating. I labour under the illusion that I am mostly free to choose the models I imitate. But as you point out, even having the space and time to see who I am copying is a big ask.

    #3002

    pipefit post=2604 wrote: RE said, “There probably will come a time in the not too distant future where the Internet overall is not serving as a good control conduit and will be shut down or altered. There are also the energy issues involved in keeping it running which likely give it a limited lifespan here..”

    You don’t understand the purpose of the internet. It’s purpose is to gather information on us. All of us. It is not replaceable. Mighty cost effective too. It pays for itself with side uses: selling junk that helps to run up debt, lol.

    I am perfectly aware of the use of the Internet for Data Mining on the population. You might try reading my response in the current thread in the Diner regarding the Harvard/MIT initiative to offer up FREE coursework online.

    https://www.doomsteaddiner.org/forum/index.php?topic=269.msg1803#msg1803

    Excerpt:

    RE wrote: I see this as a possible tactic the Illuminati are employing to sieve out from the population the outrageously smart by ofering up the information for free, seeing who actually learns from it and testing them on their knowledge of it. The network would very quickly be able to sieve out the top 1% of people utilizing this system. It could be a technological means of doing a Eugenics sifting.

    Pipefit wrote:
    If ‘they’ have an Achilles heel, you won’t read about it on the internet. That is the catch 22. Kind of like those big rock festivals of the late ’60s. If you remember it, you weren’t there, lol.

    This may or may not be true. There is plenty of Hubris involved here, and I do believe these folks think they are unbeatable. A likely rationale here is to let people write what they will regarding tactics and Achilles heel issues, just so that they can use this as a means to prepare in advance for said tactics. Even if you have come up with a winning Tactic, they won’t believe it is winning because they think they can prepare for it. May or may not be true.

    Honestly, I don’t think any exogenous tactic is necessary here. The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence. You just have to be patient and WAIT for the inevitable implosion. Of course, surviving long enough to still be around when the Conduits Fail is itself a challenge.

    The people running the show, behind the scenes, absolutely adore Barrack, and he’s gonna get reelected. Period. Did you notice how, once Romney virtually clinched the Republican nomination, the media, including mainstream sites on the web, were given permission to mention Ron Paul’s name, lol?

    I don’t think Obama-sama is “adored” any more than any other Puppet, from Sarkozy to Merkel to Olli Rehn. Said puppets are used for so long as they are useful, then pitched into the wastebasket when necessary, usually with a good Golden Parachute so new Puppets are lured into the game here. Comletely FLUSHING a Puppet and setting him up for a takedown like say Elliot Spitzer doesn’t happen too often. You really have to mess with the plans to get flushed that way.

    The O-man probably will get re-elected because he still is useful and a particularly pliable puppet. Regardless of the Puppet installed here as POTUS though, the results will come out the same. The system will STILL crash regardless.

    RE
    https://www.doomsteaddiner.com

    #3003

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    pipefit post=2604 wrote: If ‘they’ have an Achilles heel, you won’t read about it on the internet. That is the catch 22. Kind of like those big rock festivals of the late ’60s. If you remember it, you weren’t there, lol.

    My reverse engineering of the system is different than yours.

    The financial oligarchs don’t spend untold billions educating us to think a certain way and influencing us with propaganda because the truth will never be read. They do that in order to make sure most folks won’t care if they see the truth or will, in fact, revolt at the truth.

    I guarantee you that rock solid, 100% absolute beyond all doubt, evidence that the Federal Reserve is a lying, criminal organization is NOT information they want out there, which is why they censor it from all MSM media.

    But it is out there… in this post even.

    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77

    Nobody who understands that chart could ever take Ben Bernanke or anyone else at the Fed seriously. They are criminals – breaking their own law to create the epic bubble of all bubbles that will, with mathematical certainty, lead us into the epic Greatest Depression of all time.

    Yet that link has probably elicited one or two people that responded as though they have clue one as to what that chart represents.

    Why? The billions spent on programming and conditioning were well worth the “cost” (as defined by them issuing debt to society so they can spend the money to manipulate us).

    From my view, there is no future unless we can uproot these murderous, thieving, psychopathic criminals – and that means we have to resist them anyway we can.

    In a way, it is fortunate that nobody really takes me seriously – it they did, then that is when the “whack team” gets busy.

    Breitbart dying the day of his big announcement (heart attack at 43 and the “news” knew what it was within hours, selling that narrative to condition people. Two weeks later, video came out that had nothing to do with what he said he was going to show to “vet Obama”. Now his coroner is dead – poisoned).

    Gary Webb exposed the CIA as running the drugs into South Central and complained he was being followed and men in dark suits were seen climbing his home… shot twice in the head… suicide of course.

    The DC Madam “committed suicide” after claiming she wouldn’t commit suicide and complained to her rental manager she was being followed.

    Five members of Jessica Lynch rescue team, all knowing her narrative of heroic deeds to rally the suckers in America were false, were killed off one by one in a short period of time. So many were dying so fast that Lynch went public and said it was all a hoax, probably fearing for her own life.

    I could go on – Barry Jennings dying right before the 911 Commission report was released.

    The Bloomberg reporter who sued the Fed died within a year of his initiating that lawsuit – in his early 50s.

    The oil analyst that kept screaming about the Gulf of Mexico disaster died during the aftermath of the disaster (and shut up about it, too!).

    Lincoln was killed – and he cut the banksters out of the monetary loop.

    Garfield publicly outed the banksters as controlling the economy and a couple weeks later he was killed.

    Jackson fought the banksters tooth and nail and he’d be dead except for two misfired guns.

    Anti Fed Charles Lindbergh Sr.’s grandson was kidnapped and killed, for no apparent reason.

    Louis T. McFadden outed the Fed as a criminal cartel and he was poisoned to death.

    Kennedy obstructed Operation Northwoods, he was killed and Operation Northwoods went live within 9 months – and LL Lemnitzer, the guy who presented Operation Northwoods to Kennedy and was demoted for it, was promoted to head NATO once Kennedy was out of the way.

    In the end we all die, though.

    That’s a certainty.

    What is up in the air is what we stood for while alive.

    The vast majority of people will have “jelly fish” written on their gravestones for eternity.

    Real tyrant fighters aren’t killed because of tyrants, they are killed because of all the jelly fish that do nothing so the tyrant fighters stick out like a sore thumb.

    When our progeny are spitting on our graves, I want it to be a mistake when they spit on mine, not well deserved retribution.

    But hey, morality, integrity, decency, goodness, concern for others… all outdated, right? Crazy folk dwell there.

    #3004

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    Reverse Engineer post=2615 wrote:
    I don’t think Obama-sama is “adored” any more than any other Puppet, from Sarkozy to Merkel to Olli Rehn. Said puppets are used for so long as they are useful, then pitched into the wastebasket when necessary, usually with a good Golden Parachute so new Puppets are lured into the game here. Comletely FLUSHING a Puppet and setting him up for a takedown like say Elliot Spitzer doesn’t happen too often. You really have to mess with the plans to get flushed that way.

    The O-man probably will get re-elected because he still is useful and a particularly pliable puppet. Regardless of the Puppet installed here as POTUS though, the results will come out the same. The system will STILL crash regardless.

    RE
    https://www.doomsteaddiner.com

    I agree – Obama is just a tool for these criminals to use up.

    But he does keep the Democrats off the streets and it sure is easier to wage wars, fund al Qaeda to start a genocide in Libya and Syria, etc… with this criminal in power.

    MLK was all about content of character… the American people are all about “party” and skin color.

    Aldous was a wicked insider minion, but he hit the nail on the head here…

    “That men do not learn very much from the lessons of history is the most important of all the lessons that history has to teach.”
    ― Aldous Huxley, Collected Essays

    #3010

    ben
    Member

    Andee post=2608 wrote: Greetings Peter if you’re reading these comments. I thought I was alone. Over the years I have developed the ability to spend time at will on the conscious/subconscious divide that you so clearly describe. What a revelation this is. Very interesting. I will be exploring your further offerings.

    andee, in the event you find this helpful, an easy way to read what peter has up at DD so far is to go to his profile and click on ‘show posts.’

    #3011

    pipefit
    Participant

    RE said, “The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence.”

    I pretty much agree with that. The difficult thing is to predict the trajectory. Think about it. Here we are, five years into the collapse, and as far as I can tell, the online community is split almost 50-50 between hyper inflation and deflation trajectories.

    What does that tell you about the ‘worth’ of the information on the web. Take a guy like Ash. He is obviously very bright. But so is Jim Sinclair, James Turk, and 100 OTHER inflationists. Half of these very smart guys are dead wrong, and yet, they are all looking at the exact same information. The information can’t be very good. Or at least MOST of it is no good.

    #3012

    pipefit
    Participant

    Hi Tri, you said-“www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77

    Nobody who understands that chart could ever take Ben Bernanke or anyone else at the Fed seriously. “

    Maybe all your convincing talk about the evil ones has made me paranoid, because I’m a bit reluctant to click on a link to a link to a link, lol. Maybe you’re one of ‘them’, and found out I voted for Ron Paul, lol? If this chart is critically important to your analysis, why not just post it directly, or at most post a link directly to it? If you’re one of ‘them’, could I have 2-bedroom suite with a terrace at Gitmo?

    #3013

    Bot Blogger
    Member

    Hi Peter,

    Thanks for your excellent article. Loved it.

    Thanks also for the reference to Rene Girard. Reading him makes me blanch. For anyone that’s interested there is wonderful series on Rene Girard’s at the CBC Ideas website.

    https://www.cbc.ca/ideas/episodes/2011/02/28/the-scapgoat-rene-girards-anthropology-of-violence-and-religion/

    One thing that I find missing from what he is saying is the next step. Once we have differentiated ourselves from the subject-object-model dynamic, we would realize ourselves as already the model that we desire. But how does that realization come into being given that by desiring something we are implicitly excluding it from our achievement. By achieving it we no longer desire it. It’s sort of like when people here continue to nit pick over the flavour of apocalypse that is to come. When they are already in agreement that the future is grim. Stasis is just no fun.

    #3014

    RBM
    Participant

    Hello Peter,

    From my limited perspective of this single post, it strikes me as a bit discombobulated.

    My personal bio could be part of what’s at play in that characterization. I’m an INTJ as defined be the Meyers-Briggs personality type model. The ‘N’ in INTJ stands for intuition as they define it. Your definition is certainly closer to theirs than any of my recent reading.

    My past reading includes other gambits of what is arguably intuition such as Carlos’ writing and the books and online writing of Ingo Swann.

    My recent reading however, of ‘My Big TOE’ has put the past lessons into a unified overarching model. It’s a unification of physics with metaphysics and philosophy.

    The video indicates you are relatively young. I’m not. Good luck to you and I hope you continue to dig deeper than what you have submitted here.

    #3015

    RBM post=2627 wrote: The video indicates you are relatively young. I’m not. Good luck to you and I hope you continue to dig deeper than what you have submitted here.

    Peter is older than I am. He’s in his 60s, so unless you compare him to an octagenarian he’s not relatively young.

    RE

    #3016

    RBM
    Participant

    My mistake, I thought it was Peter in the video:

    The video indicates you are relatively young

    I only viewed a few seconds of it.

    #3017

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    pipefit post=2625 wrote: Hi Tri, you said-“www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77

    Nobody who understands that chart could ever take Ben Bernanke or anyone else at the Fed seriously. “

    Maybe all your convincing talk about the evil ones has made me paranoid, because I’m a bit reluctant to click on a link to a link to a link, lol. Maybe you’re one of ‘them’, and found out I voted for Ron Paul, lol? If this chart is critically important to your analysis, why not just post it directly, or at most post a link directly to it? If you’re one of ‘them’, could I have 2-bedroom suite with a terrace at Gitmo?

    pipefit, it is called a PDF file hosting site.

    The “establishment” obviously hasn’t conditioned you to “trust” them yet. I’m not sure what you think will be different than me posting the file directly here… perhaps you could explain so I can learn something.

    I have attached the file to this post.

    Attached files

    WMDebt_Graph_3.pdf (77 KB)

    #3019

    Glennjeff
    Participant

    Thanks Peter,

    Your thoughts were interesting enough to get me to finally check out DD where some interesting stuff was found.

    RBM,

    My Big Toe is a great find, thanks

    Sent me on a search for stuff on youtube, these are what interested me the most

    Talk on My Big Toe by Dr Thomas Campbell
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxECb7zcQhQ

    Robert Munroe on Alternative Realities
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_4_-PDqQ9bM

    Free online training in out of body experiences
    https://obe4u.com/

    #3022

    RBM
    Participant

    FYI, Tom Campbell is not a Doctor. This can be confirmed many ways, including the book site’s forum, as this issue has come up before.

    Tom learned OOB’s from Robert in exchange for helping Robert to set up a lab to study the phenomena through scientific methodology.

    Later, they each went their own ways.

    The Monroe Institute has never and currently does not provide a context nor causal mechanism for OOB’s as Tom does. Tom was able to perform these assessments through his time in that altered state in the ensuing years post-MI.

    Each provides utility through their information.

    Personally, as a reader of TAE and Tom’s work, I find I get better context related to what is going on.

    #3023

    Golden Oxen
    Participant

    @pipefit Putting Ash in the same league as James Turk or Jim Sinclair on the subject of finance, especially inflation deflation analysis is a mistake. They are the deans of the subject matter, qualified, have been correct for decades, specialized in the topic their entire lives, have assumed much wealth from practicing what they preach. Ash may qualify in the brain department but lacks the focus and track record due a lot to his age. You forgot to mention Jim Grant, who is smarter than all of them put together.

    #3024

    Golden Oxen
    Participant

    @ TheTrivium4Tw That was quite a posting. Jellyfish is the correct word. Left you a Thank You for your exceptional, poignant post.

    #3026

    Bot Blogger
    Member

    RBM,GlennJeff:

    Thanks for the links, interesting.

    I like HBT(his big toe). I’m a exhausted from watching it though. Speaking of appeal to authority, quoting Einstein and then saying reality is digital is a big leap. Though I suppose after reality is unified as one, it is logically two. Binary. But the harmonic series says that an event in time appears as one, two, three, four, five, six (etc, to infinity) and these arise simultaneously within the one. Hence I believe reality is still analogue. Two is simply the first harmonic after the fundamental.

    If evolution is an entropy reduction system then I suppose Love is the ultimate expression of it. Because conflict/entropy is absorbed by it’s function. Logically we are on a path far from love and entropy reduction in our present garbage producing world.

    Interesting stuff.

    RBM, I don’t think you and Peter are far from the same perception of things. Ultimately MBT’s consciousness development through meditation and Peter’s dark place at the twilight state betwixt awake and asleep are the same in my estimation.

    Curious to hear of your experience with YBT (your big toe) though.

    #3028

    Glennjeff
    Participant

    Bot Blogger,

    Youtube has great introductory stuff on just about eveything imaginable, sorry about the exhaustion.

    I didn’t actually “get” the Love as Entropy concept until I read your comment, thanks.

    A third categorization of this phenomena is being “out of body” and/or “seeing in a different dimension” whilst walking around in normal day to day consciousness, which of course stops it being normal immediately. :ohmy:

    #3032

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    pipefit post=2624 wrote: RE said, “The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence.”

    I pretty much agree with that. The difficult thing is to predict the trajectory. Think about it. Here we are, five years into the collapse, and as far as I can tell, the online community is split almost 50-50 between hyper inflation and deflation trajectories.

    What does that tell you about the ‘worth’ of the information on the web. Take a guy like Ash. He is obviously very bright. But so is Jim Sinclair, James Turk, and 100 OTHER inflationists. Half of these very smart guys are dead wrong, and yet, they are all looking at the exact same information. The information can’t be very good. Or at least MOST of it is no good.

    pipefit post=2624 wrote: RE said, “The system will collapse due to its own complexity and energy dependence.”

    I pretty much agree with that. The difficult thing is to predict the trajectory. Think about it. Here we are, five years into the collapse, and as far as I can tell, the online community is split almost 50-50 between hyper inflation and deflation trajectories.

    What does that tell you about the ‘worth’ of the information on the web. Take a guy like Ash. He is obviously very bright. But so is Jim Sinclair, James Turk, and 100 OTHER inflationists. Half of these very smart guys are dead wrong, and yet, they are all looking at the exact same information. The information can’t be very good. Or at least MOST of it is no good.

    This is where the Appeal To Authority definition that Ash is clinging to by the lapels absolutely falls apart and exposes its entire absurdity.

    Ash’s definition is correct… From 42 Fallacies…

    “This fallacy is committed when the person in question is not a legitimate authority on the subject. More formally, if person A is not qualified to make reliable claims in subject S, then the argument will be fallacious.”

    The problem is that this has absolutely zero useful value when trying to determine what is *reality*, which is the whole reason for understanding logical fallacies (those things that appear to be logical truth but are, in fact, logical fallacies… or lies).

    Further on in the definition, 42 Fallacies finally let’s rubber meet road.

    “When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”

    This, BTW, can be done without regard to the legitimacy of the “authority,” which means that exemption for “real” authorities makes no logical sense since they can’t establish their authority over an issue without actually providing adequate EVIDENCE supporting the truth of an issue. This makes that alleged exemption for “true authority” meaningless.

    History has born out that “authorities” are wrong all the time. They might not know, they might be corrupt, they may have an alternate agenda, they may have been established as an authority to lie and manipulate the people for the criminal financial oligarchs that currently are bankrupting with the world through fraud.

    As I said to Ash, the absolute best way to deceive people is to have an authority to do it – especially when the goal is to deceive the nation or a world.

    In addition, how is someone supposed to know who an authority is, unless they can see “ADEQUATE EVIDENCE” that doesn’t consist of “I said so, I’m an expert.”

    It isn’t so much Ash’s fault – because the definition is what it is and he’s relying on the ATA of the accepted definition. Yes, that’s an ATA, too.

    I, on the other hand, logically think it through and conclude that definition is not logically consistent, because the two sentences I quotes are not consistent.

    It appears to me that the Sophists likely used their “money power” to wiggle into the definition of ATA because they know that is such an effective way to manipulate and control the masses, they don’t want to unduly alert the masses to their con game.

    You know, the same way they deceived the entire economics profession to ignore private debt. Or deceive the entire world, including the economics profession, as to the true mandate of the Federal Reserve.

    Or to deceive the world into accepting filtering commercial grade, industrial toxic waste through their children without any legitimate studies proving it was effective as advertised (yeah, that lab coat worked wonders for the social engineers – read Edward Bernays’ Propaganda, the social engineers have!).

    Or how they deceive the world to take flu shots and pump themselves up with heavy metals without even doing real science to show it is effective.

    The social engineers also love tricking people into thinking correlation is causation… and they are the authorities.

    My point here is that YOU are making a grave mistake by LISTENING TO AND RELYING ON ANY AUTHORITY. YOU need to understand the data being communicated by that person and you need to apply the necessary TO REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

    This isn’t Ash (or Ilargi or Nicole or Steve Keen) vs Faber, Rickards, Grant, etc…

    This is data and logic vs data and logic and each one will have a slightly different take.

    BTW, those who pay attention to the data and logic will know that Nicole and Ilargi believe that the end game is also hyperinflation (not sure about Ash, but I seem to think this is his view as well), so anyone who portrays this issue as “inflation vs deflation” and pits TAE with other commentators doesn’t fully understand the issue or is a very poor communicator.

    The point is – unless you can explain WHY you believe something is right and WHY you believe something is wrong, you are ripe pickings for the fallacy monster.

    That includes data and logic.

    without such, there is no way to critically examine the veracity of said claims so one can reach their own conclusions based on their own set of beliefs and value system.

    Ultimately, anyone making a claim without backing it up with data and logic is hiding something – mainly, the data, the logic and the ability of another another person to critically evaluate their claim.

    #3033

    ashvin
    Participant

    I just realized the way I posted this may have been a bit misleading. I only posted one of the videos from the original article, because the other one could not be embedded (at least, I couldn’t figure out how to do it and was in a rush). The video that is not posted came right after this sentence:

    “Here is an impressive example of blatantly employing such a strategy to get a specific result.”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=ZyQjr1YL0zg

    #3034

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    Golden Oxen post=2636 wrote: @pipefit Putting Ash in the same league as James Turk or Jim Sinclair on the subject of finance, especially inflation deflation analysis is a mistake. They are the deans of the subject matter, qualified, have been correct for decades, specialized in the topic their entire lives, have assumed much wealth from practicing what they preach. Ash may qualify in the brain department but lacks the focus and track record due a lot to his age. You forgot to mention Jim Grant, who is smarter than all of them put together.

    Hi Golden, thanks for the “thanks.” Did you open up that PDF, directly linked in a later post? If not, open it up – it is the silver stake in the heart of the Vampire Squid, yet almost nobody will even acknowledge that it exists once it is posted. It is bizarre – I guess they can’t emotionally handle the system is so wacked that it will present a murderous demon like Bernanke as legitimate.

    Yes, just like Dahmer wielded knives to wreak his havoc, Bernanke wields monetary policy to eventually, in due time, starve millions to death… and the system grovels to him. It really isn’t “The Bernank,” though. He’s a stooge for the people who really control the actions of the Fed, including hiring front men like Bernanke. The OWNERS of the mega banks whose CEOs sit on the Board of Directors ultimately control the policies of the Fed.

    Now, I’m not anti-gold or silver. They have a HUGE benefit over other forms of wealth – no counter-party risk (and the counter-party is literally a ravenous, blood thirsty, thieving Vampire Squid Demon). Well, that’s not entirely true, the “counter-party” could be a foreign military used by the Financial Oligarchs to strip us of our gold and silver or through us into “re-education camps” that the U.S. government they’ve captured is now busy setting up…

    Yes, The Re-Education Camp Manual Does Apply Domestically to U.S. Citizens

    https://www.infowars.com/yes-the-re-education-camp-manual-does-apply-domestically-to-u-s-citizens/

    This is why I vigorously out these criminals – and unless people wake up to reality and kick these criminals out, there will be nothing but enslavement for our progeny.

    Based on my research, though, every indication is that these financial oligarchs will orchestrate a wicked deflation, ahead of the eventual hyperinflation, in order to create an environment where they can trade their trillions in cash and debt ownership into ACTUAL POSSESSION OF REAL ASSETS

    That deflation means that bank credit will be eliminated – ZEROED OUT. That can’t happen to gold or silver unless it is at the point of a gun. The banks and retirement accounts can easily be stolen.

    TAE’s argument is that it will be tough to get gold and silver at current prices when credit is no longer offered to most people and 95% of our currency is simply credit based.

    I listen to hours and hours of people who think we go right into hyperinflation. While I disagree with that analysis, they have so much other valuable insight that has helped me to learn a lot.

    While there are many complexities, I think a major one boils down to WHO is actually in charge.

    Most straight to hyperinflation folks think that the government is in charge, Obama actually rules the roost from on high, and the government will act to protect its own interests.

    Given this, the government will act in its own interest and print money.

    I could not disagree more. In my view, the “money power” is perched atop all governments and they rule from behind the scenes. They fill Obama’s telemprompter and he simply reads it. Obama has no real power to stop the wars, as Kennedy found out. And then his brother found out.

    The borrower (government) is SERVANT to the lender (money power). No sovereign government would allow Debt Dollar Tyrants to wage economic warfare against their citizens through the Federal Reserve System. No sovereign nation would allow, indeed aid and abet, the criminal bubble blowing of the Federal Reserve…

    Weapons of Mass Debt
    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3324744/wmdebt-graph-3-79k?tr=77

    Debt Dollar Tyranny
    https://www.keepandshare.com/doc/3325954/debt-dollar-tyranny-2-54k?tr=77

    These systems are FRAUDULENT!

    “Government” has provided cover for this FRAUD since 1913. The most aggressive opponents of this banking / warfare model have had consistently bad outcomes…

    Lindbergh’s grandson was kidnapped and murdered.

    Louis T. McFadden was poisoned.

    Two Kennedy’s were killed fighting the war mongering.

    The Operation Northwoods false flag murderer Lemnitzer was PROMOTED TO HEAD NATO!

    Larry McDonald’s plane was shot down.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puNCkwjuxJ0

    Note the tactic of the CFR guy to avoid addressing the answers given and to keep highlighting “conspiracy.” One side is giving data and evidence, the other side is saying things like “he’s my friend” and “is that part of the conspiracy?”

    BTW, the ONLY evidence that plane was shot down by Russians is our government – and they are caught lying all the time. I don’t know what exactly happened, but I know it worked out well for the financial oligarchs to get rid of this guy who was out publicly exposing them.

    There is a LOT more data that supports this view.

    Now, once once takes the position that the international financiers are running the show, once would have to logically conclude that they do so in their self interest.

    TBTF&J banksters? That fits the mold perfectly. The government actually protects these criminals from prosecution.

    Now, if the financial oligarchs own trillions in debt receipts (and main street owes that debt), one has to ask a simple question…

    “Is it in the best interest of the financial oligarchs to bust the debtors and take physical possession of their goods before hyperinflating to balance their books (the banks are already bankrupt – asset prices could go to zero and they are still safe at TBTF&J, but their competition is not) or bailing out those who are in debt and eating the losses themselves?”

    IMHO, the answer is pretty obvious. That doesn’t mean they won’t “quantitatively ease” their own losses by using public debt/money to prop up markets while the true insiders get out at much higher prices, though, which is what I believe we are witnessing. You don’t expect Fed liars to tell the truth about their operations do you?

    Even if this view is true, it doesn’t mean one is safe since the government is essentially an arm of the financial oligarch empire.

    NOBODY IS SAFE.

    Not even the oligarchs themselves, as infighting can lead to blood shed.

    So having some gold makes sense. Spending every last dollar ahead of a likely deflationary depression, especially when they don’t have control over the resources they need to live, is probably not very wise.

    I just can’t imagine these people risked going to jail for life to steal “fiat” in order to turn around and make the “fiat” worthless WHILE STILL IN THEIR HANDS.

    All the “straight to hyperinflation” people need to address why the “money power” is accepting very low interest rates on their capital is they KNOW they are going to hyperinflate in the near future. Remember, the money power controls the quantity of money, NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

    They need to explain why JP Morgan is giving 4% 30 year loans out to anyone qualified ahead of this imminent hyperinflation that the OWNERS of JP Morgan will help to orchestrate.

    These two Achilles heels of the straight to hyperinflation crowd don’t address this other than to dismissively say “they are stupid.” They usually point to Bernanke as being an “academic” who “doesn’t get it,” all the while assuming Bernanke actually has the ability to make his own decisions and screw over his employers (which he never does, his policies are the policies that benefit his controllers b/c they control his policies!).

    I’ve studied these people – and they are anything but stupid.

    Nicole’s insight that there will be a “deflationary spiked pit” ahead of the eventual hyperinflation makes perfect sense from the POV of the criminal banking cartel that controls trillions in cash and trillions more in debt.

    I mean, would YOU hyperinflate while holding trillions upon trillions in debt and cash or would you bust the debtors and roll up all their assets under your corporate fronts first? Once you own much of the world through your corporate fronts, the value of money doesn’t matter much – you already won the real life game of Monopoly – and that’s the whole reason you set up Debt Dollar Tyranny in the first place. To asset strip society.

    I hope you don’t take this as an attack on gold – it isn’t. I’m hard core data and I just want to get it right. In fact, I fully plan to buy some gold after the economy breaks.

    I have no intent to offend one side or the other.

    I just don’t get guys like FOFOA who claim homeless people will be able to buy homes for almost nothing… as though the other end of that deal has no power when they hold all the cards… and an extra 8 aces to boot.

    PS – another hyperinflation argument is that the stock market is going up because of inflation expectations… but they never mention the stock market is small potatoes compared to the bond market – which is pointing towards deflationary collapse.

    PSS – If YOU were evil and wanted to orchestrate a deflation, you would want everyone positioned for hyperinflation in advance of the deflation, wouldn’t you? Ouch! These people in control aren’t dumb and anyone who thinks they are is basing their analysis on a fallacy.

    #3036

    ashvin
    Participant

    Triv,

    I appreciate your latest response because it gets to the heart of our disagreement:

    My point here is that YOU are making a grave mistake by LISTENING TO AND RELYING ON ANY AUTHORITY. YOU need to understand the data being communicated by that person and you need to apply the necessary TO REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

    By your definition of ATA fallacy, anyone who ever cites an authority for support is committing a “logical lie” and should automatically be considered suspect. You are (admittedly) using “logical fallacy” to mean “a subjectively ‘unreasonable’ statement used in an argument” instead of the technical definition, which is closer to “an objectively incoherent statement”.

    Using the latter definition, one can identify logical fallacies in an argument and discredit the entire style of argumentation without ever discussing the substance of the argument. That is because the method of argumentation is absurd by definition, and therefore should not be taken seriously. Using your much more lax definition of logical fallacy, I do not believe we can dismiss the method of argumentation at all.

    Instead, we must look to the substance of the argument to see if it has any merit. For example, if I wrote that “a central bank must exist in modern financial economies to manage unemployment and inflation” and cited a paper by BB as support, then you cannot simply dismiss my argument because of the mere fact that I cited an “authority” in the field. You would have to attack the personal characteristics of BB (maybe he is clearly a lying crook) and/or the substance of his reasoning to attack the argument (as you know, that wouldn’t be very hard to do).

    #3041

    TheTrivium4TW
    Participant

    ashvin post=2649 wrote: Triv,

    I appreciate your latest response because it gets to the heart of our disagreement:

    My point here is that YOU are making a grave mistake by LISTENING TO AND RELYING ON ANY AUTHORITY. YOU need to understand the data being communicated by that person and you need to apply the necessary TO REACH YOUR OWN CONCLUSION.

    By your definition of ATA fallacy, anyone who ever cites an authority for support is committing a “logical lie” and should automatically be considered suspect. You are (admittedly) using “logical fallacy” to mean “a subjectively ‘unreasonable’ statement used in an argument” instead of the technical definition, which is closer to “an objectively incoherent statement”.

    Using the latter definition, one can identify logical fallacies in an argument and discredit the entire style of argumentation without ever discussing the substance of the argument. That is because the method of argumentation is absurd by definition, and therefore should not be taken seriously. Using your much more lax definition of logical fallacy, I do not believe we can dismiss the method of argumentation at all.

    Instead, we must look to the substance of the argument to see if it has any merit. For example, if I wrote that “a central bank must exist in modern financial economies to manage unemployment and inflation” and cited a paper by BB as support, then you cannot simply dismiss my argument because of the mere fact that I cited an “authority” in the field. You would have to attack the personal characteristics of BB (maybe he is clearly a lying crook) and/or the substance of his reasoning to attack the argument (as you know, that wouldn’t be very hard to do).

    Hi Ash,

    The extended definition of ATA has an assumption embedded into it. An “authority” is essentially defined as someone who can’t be wrong (for any reason, self interest, lying crook or simply a, shall we say, “useful idiot” in a position of authority who has been fed bad data, for example – you know GIGO).

    My argument is that one can’t exclude the “authority” being wrong (for any reason) unless one knows the data and the logic that underlies the claim or argument made by said “authority.” In fact, how can one even know who is an “authority” or not without actually delving into the data and logic used by the “authority?”

    You can’t believe the “news” – they have no obligation to tell the truth and they openly lie to benefit the financial interests of those that pay the bills… Youtube “Unsettling Accounts” (and cross reference the claims to make sure they aren’t faked!).

    This is from Appeal to Authority as cited in 42 Fallacies…

    “When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”

    It is a “logical lie” (fallacy is a form of lie, it isn’t truth) to claim one KNOWS something based upon the authority of another.

    No, all you know is what someone else said. It might be true, it might not be true. Only the “evidence” can resolve that issue.

    An example of this just occurred on the SS thread. It was claimed that the Fed has a dual mandate based on the “authority” of Ben Bernanke, the media, the politicians, the talking heads, etc…

    Uh, no. That’s a fallacy. That fallacy occurred because… wait for it…

    “When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”

    … in spite of the “authority” being an actual 100% subject matter authority (Ben knows his mandate inside and out and he lies through his teeth to make sure MOST PEOPLE don’t ever find out what it is – since the Fed broke it for ~25 years and it is a root cause of the coming collapse).

    Obviously, having an actual authority make a proclamation isn’t sufficient to prove a claim is factually correct.

    To claim it is, in spite of clear evidence to the contrary, just doesn’t make any sense.

    So, my definition of ATA is consistent with the actual definition of ATA excluding the trivially disprovable portions of the definition (yeah, people lie… hello?!?!? Real world calling the naive – I understand Nicole is quoted as saying “the system IS corruption”).

    IOW, an actual “authority” is not always reliable. In fact, the best way to deceive masses of people is to promote actual authorities that lack honesty and integrity – we see it all around us today.

    In fact, I believe it is a pillar of Big Finance Capital social control and manipulation of the masses today.

    Just to be clear for those not paying attention to the minutiae, when Ash uses the term “discredit,” he means the argument, NOT the conclusion(s). The conclusions may well be 100% true. Or not. What it does is discredit the idea that the argument logically establishes the truthfulness of the conclusion, AKA, reality.

    When someone claims that Ben Bernanke’s pronouncements of a dual mandate make it so, they are committing a fallacy with 100% certainty.

    It isn’t true, therefore, the logic used to arrive at that wrong answer isn’t true, either.

    I’ve read the law. I posted it on the SS thread and elsewhere.

    The Fed’s mandate is singular. Ben’s lying.

    If one has to rely solely on the “authority” of someone’s claim, how can one know whether the claim is real or not – especially in matters of world wide import?

    How can I be sure, with 100% certainty, that this can’t occur…

    “When a person falls prey to this fallacy, they are accepting a claim as true without there being adequate evidence to do so.”

    …when I rely on “authority” alone?

    The reality is I can’t, hence my claim data and logic is required in order for people to truly KNOW a conclusion is accurate, completely false or somewhere inbetween.

    Having the ability to falsify something is a pillar of science. ATA means the lowly proles will have no way to actually falsify something or challenge the dictates from “on higg.”

    What value would it have to debate which one of the Fed’s dual mandates (based on Bernanke’s authoritative claim) is more important when the Fed doesn’t even have a dual mandate?

    You could have such a lively debate… but what would it prove?

    Absolutely nothing.

    ATA doesn’t mean the data presented is wrong, it just means that you CAN’T KNOW whether it is right or wrong and you can’t exclude being misled by an “authority” figure and you have NO CHANCE to try and confirm it or falsify it. Therefore, you can’t KNOW whether something is true or false, although, you may well believe it if you choose to. People do every day.

    As for your Bernanke example, all I would know is that ATA was used to establish the need for Central Banks and that is logical fallacy – so that argument can’t be used to establish the need for Central Banks.

    I can’t disprove the statement, I can’t accept the statement, I just wasted some time and learned nothing more than someone is either trying to deceive me or they simply have no clue how to make a proper argument that actually has value in establishing the ultimate claim.

    Attacking Bernanke himself is simply ad Hominem and that proves nothing, either. BTW, my attacks on Bernanke are backed by data and logic which I gladly share even though people are entirely uninterested in the truth of this evilness. They aren’t ad Hominem attacks. They are factual attacks.

    As for attacking the **substance** of Bernnake’s argument – I couldn’t do that unless I actually had access to the underlying data he used (to vet it out and make sure it is accurate and not skewed one way or another) and the logic he applied.

    That’s why I can prove he’s lying when he says he has a “dual mandate.”

    I have the actual law. I can read it and understand it. I know the mandate, I know the results of following the mandate are different entities.

    Denninger went and took the Federal Reserve data that proves the Fed has broken their very own mandate for 25 years running!

    I followed Denninger’s Fed links to verify the data itself so I could be confident the chart was correct!

    BTW, his current Debt to GDP charts are wrong because his GDP data is off (~19 trillion). I know that, too, because I sourced the actual data.

    If I just trusted Denninger and made the argument the chart was right based on his “authority,” I’d would have fallen for a logical fallacy.

    ATA makes perfect sense… and there is no logical fallacy that describes believing an actual authority that is lying to you.

    So, either the definition isn’t logical or I just identified a brand new class of logical fallacy. I don’t think I did the latter. Believing a lying legitimate authority is ATA, from my perspective.

    BTW, I get that the truth of this approach isn’t applicable all day, every day the truth is, but the every day application isn’t – we’d be overwhelmed). But is key to understand that, if you didn’t do the research yourself, you don’t actually KNOW it.

    Not knowing something with certainty doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    You might get 95% of things right without doing the “due diligence” to KNOW and be able to confirm, falsify or get somewhere inbetween.

    Maybe even 99%.

    But when you get that 1% wrong (even 0.1%) and it is your monetary system or your food supply or your water supply or your diet or your medical system or your energy policy or your economic system…

    Look out.

    Attached files

    WMDebt_Graph_3_2012-05-05.pdf (77 KB)

    #3046

    RBM
    Participant

    Bot Blogger wrote: Speaking of appeal to authority, quoting Einstein and then saying reality is digital is a big leap

    TC closes that gap with referencing the work of Brian Whitworth, Ed Fredkin among others. See his youtube channel for many other workshops/Q&A’s.

    Ultimately MBT’s consciousness development through meditation and Peter’s dark place at the twilight state betwixt awake and asleep are the same in my estimation.

    Consciousness development does not occur through meditation.

    Such development occurs through interaction with individuals (high/low entropy). Meditation is not at all even needed to execute such development cause the Larger Consciousness System is made to provide feedback from interactions. All one has to do is pay attention to the feedback.

    I would caution anyone from jumping to conclusions based on their present knowledge base. I have watched several, not all, video of TC. More, much more, importantly I have read the 800+ page book which lays it all out, step by step:

    MyBig TOE, written by a nuclear physicist in the language of contemporary Western culture, unifies science and philosophy, physics and metaphysics, mind and matter, purpose and meaning, the normal and the paranormal. The entirety of human experience (mind, body, and spirit) including both our objective and subjective worlds, are brought together under one seamless scientific understanding

    #3055

    Glennjeff
    Participant

    RBM,

    “Consciousness development does not occur through meditation.”

    That’s a rather sweeping statement, one which can be disproven with 15 minutes meditation practice by anyone with “healthy” physiology and psychology. It causes changes in brain physiology and electrical activity, blood chemistry and state of personal awarenss/mood.

    Meditation is a great way to train ones ability to concentrate and pay attention. It also makes the practitioner very aware of how much internal noise their brain/mind is generating. If one needs to pay attention to feedback from the external world it would seem meditation is prerequisite.

    You can also go into “alternative realities” through it’s doorway and thereby increase your dataset.

    Your comments on this thread stike me as being in the vein of “I have the authoritative information here”.

    Where are you really coming from?

    Speaking of authoritative,

    Triv,
    It would seem you hero worship the Authorities of Logic and Data.

    The world is not Logical, nor are people and the vast majority of Data has error or noise embedded.

    Seems to me your trying to present a very blurry image to the jury as proof of the perpetrators identity, if you get my metaphor.

    What is most apparent to this writer is “the aggressive pursuit of reason”
    that is the crutch of many bloggers (and academics). If reason was the final determinant of behaviour human affairs may be different. As for aggression, rarely does it achieve much except damage and destruction.

    Of course the word Love did come up in our discussion, an understanding of which I lust for.

    Oh, the worship of false idols!

    Anyway, I’ll go back to lurking (and meditating) for a few months.

    #3057

    Glennjeff post=2632 wrote: Thanks Peter,

    Your thoughts were interesting enough to get me to finally check out DD where some interesting stuff was found.

    Glad Peter’s stuff got you to check out DD 🙂

    I want to reinforce here to folks that DD is NOT “RE All the Time”. Its not my soapbox for my own perspective. I am Chief Moderator, but not the only moderator. We began the Blog and Forum with several people with diverse perspectives.

    LOTS of people do not like the way I approach either the topic matter OR Internet debate. If you do not like the way I write, it is still worthwhile to check out DD because there are numerous others writing there not quite so annoying as I am like Surly, Ross, Jb and of course Peter. Lots of good information and analysis every day on DD from dedicated Collapse Watchers.

    At the same time of course, nobody can ever write anything on DD without getting a piece of my mind on whatever they write on 🙂

    Live with it. LOL.

    RE

    #3060

    Bot Blogger
    Member

    RBM,

    Thanks for your short but interesting description of the MyYourHis BigTOE. In video 12 of 18 Tom recommends that one start with meditation. Best to start with an awareness of your OWN consciousness first is what he says. Seemed reasonable to me. I don’t meditate myself, have tried it but it’s not my practice. Music is. I get plenty opportunity to observe feedback from the ‘Larger Consciousness System’ in that environment. LOL. Still I think it’s a good idea to have a practice of some kind because if you have a way to ‘zero’ your consciousness you can understand better how it is you are being affected by others.

    But I enjoyed going back to the videos, I got more out of it the second time. Thanks.

    Re the Epic debate over ATA being waged between Triv and Ash. It seems it spills over the blog like some thundering wrestling match of titans. I thought we were having a rather intimate discussion of consciousness over here in the ‘intuition’ stream till Ben Bernake reared his ugly head! The Horror!

    Triv, I don’t mind being interrupted by the more pressing need for us all to wake up to the machination of lies and deception. The Corporation vid is tres exellente! My only request is perhaps less prose and more poetry… C’est possible?

    #3063

    RBM
    Participant

    Good Catch, Glennjeff,

    I am ‘guilty’ of omission regarding this statement:

    Consciousness development does not occur through meditation.”

    My omission> ‘Quality of Consciousness’ as defined by TC,

    Meditation is useful as you point out and is the reason I meditate. One could argue if I was a better at meditating I wouldn’t need to make corrections to entries here. 😉

    Your comments on this thread stike me as being in the vein of “I have the authoritative information here”.

    Where are you really coming from?

    Strike you being key. I have knowledge of a specific body of work which is directly related to the topic of thread. That’s all. Everything I’ve paraphrased about the work is falsifiable to the original sources.

    I come from active practice of a skeptical open mind in application in my life of what I have learned about the broader definition of intuition.

    By the way, TC admonishes all:

    Campbell did not put the “My” in My Big TOE to flaunt pride of authorship. Nor does the “My” indicate any lack of generality or applicability to others. The “My” was added to be a constant reminder to you that this reality model cannot serve as your personal Big TOE until it is based upon your personal experience. On the other hand, personal or subjective experience is only one piece of the reality puzzle.

    Ideally, that results in personal initiative to verify claims. Not everyone does that and misunderstandings result.

    #3064

    Glennjeff
    Participant

    RBM,

    I was just a bit uncertain, because of a few minor communication errors, what the nature of the communications were.:side:

    Got a copy of Tom’s book and am “enjoying” it after a 10 year break from reading. Thanks, a good link or reference is a precious gem and the main reason I skim blogs.

    #3066

    ashvin
    Participant

    Triv,

    I agree with 99.9% of what you wrote, but I also believe what you wrote was 99.9% outside the scope of our specific disagreement.

    TheTrivium4TW post=2654 wrote: As for your Bernanke example, all I would know is that ATA was used to establish the need for Central Banks and that is logical fallacy – so that argument can’t be used to establish the need for Central Banks.

    In my example, I cited a paper by BB as support for my statement, which implies that you can access the paper and check the “data/logic” that he used to derive the conclusion. So, according to my definition, there was no ATA fallacy.

    Attacking Bernanke himself is simply ad Hominem and that proves nothing, either.

    When I said “personal characteristics”, I really meant those characteristics of the source that are directly relevant to the issue at at hand. So it is fair game to bring up the fact that a researcher has fudged data in the past, or done something else intellectually dishonest, in order to cast suspicion on his current claims.

    As for attacking the **substance** of Bernnake’s argument – I couldn’t do that unless I actually had access to the underlying data he used (to vet it out and make sure it is accurate and not skewed one way or another) and the logic he applied.

    That’s why I can prove he’s lying when he says he has a “dual mandate.”

    I have the actual law. I can read it and understand it. I know the mandate, I know the results of following the mandate are different entities.

    Denninger went and took the Federal Reserve data that proves the Fed has broken their very own mandate for 25 years running!

    I followed Denninger’s Fed links to verify the data itself so I could be confident the chart was correct!

    Exactly. No one is arguing that we should just rely on what authorities say to determine reality. I AM arguing that we cannot dismiss arguments simply because they cite legitimate authorities for their claims (i.e. they are not logically fallacious), and rather we must do exactly what you did with the Fed law and data to attack the argument.

    Do you see how that undermines your original arguments on the other thread about the SS site? You say that you were only dealing with one specific article, but I can tell you right now that all the other ones follow the same format (making a lot of claims that are supported by citations to external references). When you think about it, that’s really the only practical way they could do it.

    But is key to understand that, if you didn’t do the research yourself, you don’t actually KNOW it.

    Not knowing something with certainty doesn’t mean it isn’t true.

    You might get 95% of things right without doing the “due diligence” to KNOW and be able to confirm, falsify or get somewhere inbetween.

    Maybe even 99%.

    But when you get that 1% wrong (even 0.1%) and it is your monetary system or your food supply or your water supply or your diet or your medical system or your energy policy or your economic system…

    Look out.

    I agree.

    But the fact that you don’t “know” a claim (supported by reference to authority) is true does not mean you “know” the claim is logically false, i.e. inherently suspect.

    #3068

    RBM
    Participant

    Glennjeff wrote: Got a copy of Tom’s book and am “enjoying” it after a 10 year break from reading.

    Wow ! I find that unimaginable ! Care to share why the 10 year hiatus ?

    Be forewarned regarding Tom’s style of writing – he has an unusual sense of humor – and the repetition of the same concept in different words.

    This repetition is explained at the beginning of, at least the trilogy, which i have, but not everyone reads all of a book.

    #3071

    I more or less read through Triv and Ash’s arguments relating to relying on “authorities” for making still FURTHER arguments, and of course everybody on all sides does this, even *I* do it occassionally.

    The length of this debate is pretty extraordinary, even by internet standards and I will admit to not having the patience to read through all of it, I mostly skimmed it.

    From my POV, all “authority” figures are just other folks who have opinions. If their opinions agree with my own, I’ll cite them as backup for my arguments. If their opinions contradict my own, I will deconstruct them to the best of my ability and show why they make no sense based on certain first priciples and postulates I hold to be true.

    A Ph.D. in Economics or Physics does not make you any smarter than any other randomly selected person a priori. It just means you went through a particular course of study for a relatively long time to get that sheepskin. Ph.D.s commit logical fallacies as often as anyone else, the main problem here is that when they make mistakes if they are inside the control structure those mistakes have far greater consequences than if J6P makes a mistake with balancing his Checking Account.

    Mainly to cut through all the BULLSHIT you have to stick to whatever first principles you have that you think guide human motivations. Far as the Dollar is concerned, at this point in time it makes no sense to hyperinflate it. At the same time, control over the levers of money creation is suspect on all levels. Its not Helicopter Ben who really creates the money, its 1000’s of Banksters creating Financial instruments like CDS and MBS that do that. Da Fed only REACTS to creation of money made in aggregate by the Lenders, pushing out the necessary FRNs only AFTER the obligations are taken on. Never of course accounting for the INTEREST involved, which eventually does compound up to the point that the whole sysem is compromised..

    For as long as the Money Masters have CONTROL of the situation, you will not get a hyperinflation. Deflation in asset values wroks more to their interest after a long period of steady inflation such as has occurred over the las few decades. However, because many of the “assets” based on cheap energy are no longer assets but rather liabilities, they are going to try to offload those assets for CASH, and if Da Fed or any other CB will push out Debt Notes to cover those assets, a Hyperinflation always remains possible. Its not a near term likelihood for the Dollar, but it is a nearer term likelihod for Yen and Euro.

    The End Game of Hyperinflation vs Deflation really is not that important though, because either way the monetary system as it is structured will crash here. Both scenarios halt trade; both scenarios end up with warfare as the final outcome. Always has, always will for so long as MONEY is used for resource distrbution. Money of ANY type at all BTW, matters not if it is Fiat or PM based. Moeny ITSELF is Evil, in all it’s incarnations. It is the ROOT of ALL EVIL. It must be eradicated from the face of the Earth, and all who promote its use must be given a one way TICKET to the Great Beyond, the sooner the better for the survival of Homo Sapiens on this Planet.

    Bring on the Inquisition. NOBODY expects a Spanish Inquisition.

    RE
    https://www.doomsteaddiner.org

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 44 total)

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.