The Brain - How Belief Circumvents Reason

[Teahive]

The flaw is paying people money/benefits in exchange for doing nothing. As you have said giving people something for nothing encourages indolence. Even if it isn't the fault of the person they don't have a job. The solution: make them work for it; viewtopic.php?t=3327&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight=

If there is work to be done, create a job. If there's no work but still people left looking for a job, it's better to educate them than to make them work on something with minimal value. Even if education means just teaching them how to live off a plot of farmland.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

Which is a sensible question. Though you must first ask why marriage is a legal concept in the first place.

[djolds1]

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

Which is a sensible question. Though you must first ask why marriage is a legal concept in the first place.

The sacred will acquire the color of legality. One could also question the validity of challenging a social institution that has endured somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years.

[seedload]

I can shut your reasoning ability off any time. All I have to say is certain key words you have been trained to respond to and you are off to the races. In fact at one time 90% of the population supported the government in this particular matter. Through 40 years of hard work myself and others now have 50% of the population against the government in the matter.

The key to shutting off reasoning is to raise fears. Lots of fears.

The purpose of government is to exploit your fears.

No Fear

The Left has its economic fears and the right its moral fears. Funny thing is I was under the impression that coming to Jesus relieved people of their fears. I know that when I was born again (in my own peculiar way) I ceased living in fear. You can't believe what a relief it was to give up that particular burden.

===========

You want to follow political manipulations? Watch what you are being taught to fear.

Hmmm... did you really give up fear or did you just shift your fear to a new kind of fear - a fear of government? Are you really reasoning or are you just acting on a new kind of belief? Are you so sure that you are actually reasoning now or might you actually be behaving in a way that is belief and fear driven and just internalized as reason? How can you even know?

Most certainly, your clear conviction that most other people are belief and fear driven while you have overcome these burdens to become a lonely figure of pure reason is a bit narcissistic and even more simplistic.

Personally, I always thought Spock was a bit of self righteous tool. But that is just me.

[Tom Ligon]

Simon,

A friend of mine has a blog, one page of which lampoons commercials. I offered a few pet peeves of my own, including two that play on fear. I also clipped your NO FEAR post above.

What she posted on her blog is heavily edited from the original e-mails I sent, but I think you'll see the seeds of your inspiration in it. Alas, she failed to credit you, so I'll do it here.

http://www.earthstarworks.com/StarsAddingInsult.html

[Tom Ligon]

Seedload,

One of my favorite bumper stickers: "I love my country. I FEAR my government." But it is just bumper-sticker philosophy, and I don't share it.

Simon's post made me aware that I really don't manipulate very well this way. I don't actually fear much. Instead, I tend to compare risks to those I encounter every day. I find myself perfectly comfortable engaging in a risk that kills 30k+ Americans every year (driving) so why should I fear today's scarry news?

Discussions of potential risks come up in my think tank, which has DHS connections. I think many of them are silly, looking at potential attacks that would garner press but would do little to the US security other than pi$$ing us off. The $$ part does get expensive. But often the reaction is more troublesome than the threat it purports to remedy.

[Teahive]

Which is a sensible question. Though you must first ask why marriage is a legal concept in the first place.

The sacred will acquire the color of legality. One could also question the validity of challenging a social institution that has endured somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years.

Tribalism or monarchy also survived a long time. Every social institution needs to be challenged from time to time, otherwise it's too easy for people to forget what it was meant for. Most of the time tradition comes out strenghtened, but sometimes circumstances change.


As a legal concept, marriage consists of certain rights and duties that serve specific purposes. I don't think those are necessarily limited to a union between man and woman.

[Diogenes]

The flaw is paying people money/benefits in exchange for doing nothing. As you have said giving people something for nothing encourages indolence. Even if it isn't the fault of the person they don't have a job. The solution: make them work for it; viewtopic.php?t=3327&start=0&postdays=0 ... highlight=

If there is work to be done, create a job. If there's no work but still people left looking for a job, it's better to educate them than to make them work on something with minimal value. Even if education means just teaching them how to live off a plot of farmland.

Absolutely agree. Those people on Welfare who are able, should be working at a job, or educating themselves. The current system just teaches them to be dependent on others, instead of encouraging them to be independent and work for their own betterment.

I think the age of secular revolutions and ideologies is winding down, painfully. Walter Russell Mead's series on the decay of "the Blue Social Model" is quite insightful, IMO various tensions are rising to a boiling point which will "conclude" the revolutions in a stable new form (homosexuals and monogamous-gay-marriages-ONLY "in," other lifestylers "out," female and racial equal rights as taken-for-granted "duhs" instead of battlefields that require constant war, etc.),

The problem with this is the legal wreckage left in the wake of this idea. As George Will et al pointed out, if you accept the argument that a marriage can be between any two consenting adults, by what legal basis can you exclude three consenting adults?

Which is a sensible question. Though you must first ask why marriage is a legal concept in the first place.

Common law. Distribution of survivor assets to wife or via Children, and legal inheritance.

There are many reasons why marriage has a long enduring legal status, and it has to do with benefits and perceived benefits to society.

[djolds1]

The sacred will acquire the color of legality. One could also question the validity of challenging a social institution that has endured somewhere between 10,000 and 100,000 years.

Tribalism or monarchy also survived a long time. Every social institution needs to be challenged from time to time, otherwise it's too easy for people to forget what it was meant for. Most of the time tradition comes out strenghtened, but sometimes circumstances change.

Those things adhere to the Kyklos - they will come around again. But sacralized marriage has been a universal - we will see if a society can survive without it, since our societies are running the experiment as we speak.

As a legal concept, marriage consists of certain rights and duties that serve specific purposes. I don't think those are necessarily limited to a union between man and woman.

The legality is irrelevant - it is the substance, the Platonic Form that defines family, that matters.

[MSimon]

Simon,

A friend of mine has a blog, one page of which lampoons commercials. I offered a few pet peeves of my own, including two that play on fear. I also clipped your NO FEAR post above.

What she posted on her blog is heavily edited from the original e-mails I sent, but I think you'll see the seeds of your inspiration in it. Alas, she failed to credit you, so I'll do it here.

http://www.earthstarworks.com/StarsAddingInsult.html

Thanks!

[MSimon]

I can shut your reasoning ability off any time. All I have to say is certain key words you have been trained to respond to and you are off to the races. In fact at one time 90% of the population supported the government in this particular matter. Through 40 years of hard work myself and others now have 50% of the population against the government in the matter.

The key to shutting off reasoning is to raise fears. Lots of fears.

The purpose of government is to exploit your fears.

No Fear

The Left has its economic fears and the right its moral fears. Funny thing is I was under the impression that coming to Jesus relieved people of their fears. I know that when I was born again (in my own peculiar way) I ceased living in fear. You can't believe what a relief it was to give up that particular burden.

===========

You want to follow political manipulations? Watch what you are being taught to fear.

Hmmm... did you really give up fear or did you just shift your fear to a new kind of fear - a fear of government? Are you really reasoning or are you just acting on a new kind of belief? Are you so sure that you are actually reasoning now or might you actually be behaving in a way that is belief and fear driven and just internalized as reason? How can you even know?

Most certainly, your clear conviction that most other people are belief and fear driven while you have overcome these burdens to become a lonely figure of pure reason is a bit narcissistic and even more simplistic.

Personally, I always thought Spock was a bit of self righteous tool. But that is just me.

The deal is the shutting off of reasoning. The gut knots. Shut off the knots. If you can do that and examine your fears without fear you will figure out if your concerns are real or the product of some one else's imagination.

As to fear of government? It has a very long and well deserved history going back at least 2,000 years to some rebel who preached against government and its inherent corruption. But let me give you something more recent. Supposedly said by George Washington. Even if it wasn't it still rings true in American culture.

"Government is not reason; it is not eloquent; it is force. Like fire, it is a dangerous servant and a fearful master." attributed to Geo. Washington

I do not wish to be the servant of government.

Most certainly, your clear conviction that most other people are belief and fear driven while you have overcome these burdens to become a lonely figure of pure reason is a bit narcissistic and even more simplistic.

OTOH it might in fact be true. At least according to Herman Goering:

“Naturally the common people don’t want war: Neither in Russia, nor in England, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, IT IS THE LEADERS of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is TELL THEM THEY ARE BEING ATTACKED, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. IT WORKS THE SAME IN ANY COUNTRY.”

Of course Herman can say nothing about my personal condition but he has the general mass of humanity down.