I wasn’t quite sure, until you mentioned aliens. If aliens are the scapegoats and not jews, it’s probably not political propaganda.
We don’t know, what we don’t know, that’s for sure. What I’ve sometimes experienced in RL discussions, when I came across the use of the term “mind boggling”, is that the person seemed to be content to stay in this state of awe rather than look further. I’m not saying this is what you’re doing, but I see it as a general danger of facing a multi-dimensional complexity. As far as I understand, it comes from mixing up different orders of “possibility” and “infinite”. If in one order the theoretical simultaenity of infinite possibilities boggles the mind, it could mislead a person to think that in another order it’s the same.
In a more practical example, this way of thinking can lead to the idea that nothing is important or that in every dimension under any preconditions the order of possibility was the same so there is nothing that isn’t. The problem is that a human can’t free themselves from their own preconditions of thought and analysis, which at the very least are matter (perceiveable or not). Thus, they might not be able to distinguish between these different orders, because the theoretical acceptance of preconditions under which everything is and is possible, could only ever be approached through the looking glass of self.
Regarding your made up story: people who believe this or part of it, do they really considere the possible or did they simply give up on even understanding the complex world we humans created within our own society and replaced that with a simple story of good vs. evil, innocent and culprits? The mechanism of capitalist production in all its good and all its violence on the individual is somewhat counter-intuitive. It’s possible that we’re going for easy answers first, because analysing complex structures is something that needs to be learned and trained, it’s not a given.
Constructing a belief in which there is an outside enemy, responsible for all that hurts us, is the easy way to go and for several reasons. One, it avoids inner conflict with our (presumed) group. It’s difficult for people to negate to concept of nation or to call out their country of residence, because they draw the feeling of personal strength from that assumed collective. Even though it isn’t a collective. The Stockholm Syndrome could teach us a lot about that, I suppose. If one tends to identify with ones violator for the sake of survival, couldn’t that mean the same goes for more than a group of people (kidnappers) and could really also function for an entire social form? I think so. It may even be that the Stockholm Syndrome as known from kidnappings is only possible there, because of preconditioning to appease and glorify ones oppressors, be it a person or a system.
Hence the theoretical realm of possibilities often serves the real and practical usage of choosing a few of these possibilities in order to bridge over missing explanations in a totally close-minded world view that derives from the concrete experience of being without power, but lacks the vision how to change that.
Sure, true for them, but that doesn’t let me get rid of the question of how it became true for them. Which possibily leads me back to how the material experience, including that of social life, is the base of thought. So I have to ask myself, how in that context, did they come to what they think is true. Empathy on such a broad level, is really hard. It’s not so much the lack of open-mindedness, it’s more the issue that we have to learn to ask questions, which aren’t usual for us, which may not even exist for us.
Often though, there are somewhat reasonable ways to come close enough. A person who believes in one specific type of god, often did not come up with this idea on their own. It’s not the outcome of them considering infinite possibilities under certain preconditions, but much more mundane, simply that they mirror what they’ve heard other people say. The violence of which could for instance lay in an unverbalized certainty, that belonging to ones group has the necessary precondition to share the belief. If you lose your social group or if you are otherwise discriminated against, when expressing thought that overly diverges from the belief, one might stick to the belief, internalize its violence just like in the Stockholm syndrome and declare it a free choice - keeping ones own face, while not becoming the outsider.
What I’ve written before, about how material reality, including forms of violence, can create thought, is exactly why I cannot enjoy it, if people tell me about certain beliefs they carry. I know that it comes from violence they experienced, it’s not “free”.
Thus I make it my business, because while we may not escape certain forms of violence (dependence on energetic exchange with our surrounding, such as eating, breathing) at this point, we can certainly tear down human-made violence that goes against the good of the species. Challenging beliefs is one way of approaching such issues.
Not only there. Since the end of state socialism, there is no visible and realistic alternative that at least could be better than capitalism. I think this leads to all kinds of confusion. Including the notion that there are infinite possibilities within our current economic system, aka the way we organize everything as a species. In fact, the possibilities within capitalism are much greater than in feudalism and the options are greater in somewhat democratic systems than in fascism, but compared to what is already clear as water doable, the possibilities are super limited. So people retreat into their own heads, where they can have every fantasy and sometimes mix up their head with the world.
My impression is, that this line of thinking is the attempt to stop asking questions. If one creates an explanation for everything, be it god, be it a general “truth” such as “everything is possible”, it is the avoidance of understanding more about the things we actually perceive.
Asking questions while moving forward is better than creating formulas which seem to always fit.
Agreed, but even if it’s not defended or remains in flux, I think the question of how one comes to a belief is interesting.
In our real life we see a lot of things that show the exact opposite of infinite possibilities. For instance, people around you don’t suddenly transform into butterflies or a piece of packaging. Mountains don’t suddenly transform into cars, the heat doesn’t suddenly go up to 6000 Kelvin and so on.
In short: A verbal subjunctif does not equal the degrees of freedom in reality.
I don’t know what either group is, but I think your description fits all humans in a way, if we can agree that “idiots” is not an insult, just all our difficulty to stop trying to look for meaning instead of creating meaning.
I’m not entirely sure. It probably has to do with class more than anything else. I’ve not met this line of thinking amgonst friends from Africa, but I’ve very much seen it amongst friends from richer Asian countries. But yeah, in western countries it’s probably by far the strongest, as we struggle to find meaning in the “race for rats to die” (Placebo).
I don’t agree. While I think that Science (for all kinds of reasons) is currently and maybe always limited, at least in the way that it can only ask questions, never deliver an all around explanation for everything (which I actually like about it), I don’t think that either mysticism or esoterism pose interesting questions where Science doesn’t take a look. Both seem to live from the base assumption that it’s better to not ask questions and to stay in awe of things we don’t understand. If, we cwould ask, and Science couldn’t deliver any deeper understanding, it could help us develop better ways of thinking/doing. This chance is missed if clinging to mysticism.
About the harm done, well it depends. When I’m taking a cab and the driver tells me that the only thing that decides wether or not there will be an accident is “fate” and that’s why his cab doesn’t have a seatbelt, I think this coudld be considered harmful. Or if parents don’t send their children to a hospital, because they believe that gods will is going to do whatever anyways. The difference between belief and the curiosity that leads to asking about orders of possibilities is huge: the first has ready-made answers for everything and could absolutely be harmful. While the latter could be harmful too, at least there is a good chance that the same harm won’t be done twice.
I don’t agree with that. Children learn from the behaviour of their peers, most of all their family. If stories about any “good stuff” is told (and this is finally what every religion claims), but the reality the parents live, is totally different, the kid will just be confused. It will learn that words don’t have to fit behaviour.
Helping children to develop a sense for community, small or large, greater good as in good for all humans, I agree with that. If the stories can help with that, sure why not. However, what does that mean? You say “loss of sense for the family” and I absolutely see that happening. I think it comes from the increased pressure on the individuum to perform and to be in competition to everyone else. Family, as we have it in western countries, is not the only way to rise a child for instance. Why don’t we do it in groups of friends? What function does the cellular family serve? And so on.
I think one reason is because the economic system is driving us apart, making enemies out of neighbors, everyone competing against everyone in a game that knows few winners. For me the best goal is to raise a child with all the safety it needs, while doing what I can to support them making a strong being out of themselves. Affection towards the family and compassion for others, is not something that I can or want to enforce, it’s something that I can only offer by being the role model.
That being said, of course there is nothing wrong to talk about the nordic gods or any other gods, but I won’t exclude the part where discussing any written word leads to the question of the motivation of its writer.
Yeah, that’s reasonable. Without the sun, without our somewhat distanced relationship, we would not be.
As far as I know, the first religions came up due to the extreme lack of control over the nature people had. When you totally depend on rainfall or lightning, things happening or not happening and you have no influence over that, people started to imagine powers greater than themselves behind nature. Then, trying to find patterns between their own behaviour and thunder, people started religions practise, by doing stuff. Not sure, when praying came, but probably after sacrifice.
I think back in these days, religion literally made sense.
Now it’s mostly “opium for the people”.
Lol, seriously? I mean, I should not be surprised, if believing basically means to take as true whatever one wants. Sure. Still, wtf.
Agreed, very much. It’s a huge probl and it also shows how extremely important the effect of economics is on education and development of people. It’s hard for people to break out of the push towards social exhibitionism, self-inscenation, everlasting competition without seeking refuge in even more stupid systems, such as all-explaining religions or fascism.
The absence of democracy in democratic countries is something that needs to be turned around. Problem only is, that democracy and todays capitalism doesn’t fit together very well.
I’m trying It’s good to not stay on the surface, I think that has value.
But it doesn’t. For instance, let’s compare two orders of infinity and let’s assume its parts are each one possibility:
The amount of Real numbers between 1 and 2 is infinit. However, it’s a different order of infinity than the amount of all Real numbers. So if one would artificially chose a set of possibilities where to each true one would have one contradiction, yeah. But what if the order would forbid the use of simple logic as expressed in boolean?
At least for the world we see, this would lead us into dialectics (not the old greek meaning, but the development of the term starting with Hegel and Marx and still going further).
That’s why I don’t think the story of “everything’s true = nothing’s true” is very fascinating and while I also don’t think the math checks out.
Well, try to explain again what I mean. Despite that, I stand with the highest and most interesting challenge being to not look for ultimate answers, but to keep on asking questions and trying to find common questions with other beings.
But that’s exactly what I argue against. Not everything is true and opposition is not a bad thing. “Everything is true” is just a way to avoid asking further questions, getting a deeper understanding of contradictions and relations of different orders of possibilities to each other. It’s a quasi-religious attempt to stop thinking.
I’m careful with any such declarations. It’s easy to believe we understand other people, but we often don’t even understand ourselves. The mental cage we’re all stuck in is actually the material base of our existance - at the very least, probably social things too. Calling that a cage is like calling the gravitational field of the earth a cage.
Sure, if we want to explore space, it’s an issue, but it also keeps us safe. Both at the same time. No 0 vs 1 solution to that.
If you believe in natural fundamentals, how can you believe everything to be true? Like, for instance, do you accept gravity, the need for all life to have energetic exchange with its surrounding and such things? If so, good, but it limits that order of possibilities greatly. And that’s okay.
Sure, the only difficulty is how to deal with people who have good intentions, but don’t see how their life is practical taking part in a structure that is doing harm to others. That’s what we mostly have in real life. It’s no ones will or fault in the sense of intent, but it still happens. That’s the challenge and that’s why I think guilt is such a stupid concept. Guilt doesn’t help anyone, it only leads to perpetuating things that cause harm.
I’m not really sure what you mean by that. Is it in the context of the discussion or specifically about the game? Who would be mass-killed by whom and why?
So, while I don’t know what you’re referring to, I’ll say that in real life it is quite common for people to have aggressive fantasies, even fantasies of getting rid of whole groups of people. It’s often the minds attempt to turn too complex problems into a seemingly simple solution, for people who feel subject to forces they can’t control. The invisible “hand” of the market in real life is a source for this kind of thinking. Many people don’t understand the mode of capitalist production and its systematics, so they seek culprits for the negative effects they feel on their own life, rather than trying to understand and find a real solution.
A slap might actually help some people realize that there are some things that are real. Why does it always hurt, no matter how often I slap? Because it is real, it is not one of trillions of possibilities, it’s a slap and that’s it. My intent would not be harm, but to help understand the importance of not taking a rollercoaster through ones thoughts as more important than material reality.
The conspiracy, as in non-public agreement of parties to further common interest, is simply the further enriching of the few at the cost of the many - worldwide. Part of that is keeping up the notion of nations, so they can play the westerners out against the poor people from the south. If the rich can lead us to believe that refugees have anything to do with the problems that we have, the rich can continue to become richer, because everyone is fighting everybody else. It’s old and it has happened for centuries. It’s not against a specific group of people, it is to make us fight each other. It’s also not even a secret, it has been going on forever. Fascism and racism are amongst its most visible forms of manipulating people into devide.
Yeah it sucks. Also for adults with their parents… In my country people treat pensioneers like crap, basically leave them alone to die, because they’re not useful anymore. It’s horrible.
For me it’s a bit different, but I do try to understand the living circumstances of people to get an idea where their thoughts are coming from. The thing is, that our own experience makes us experts for our own life, but it can sometimes be treachorous too, if we interprete too much.
Yeah I think today it is really necessary to develop a certain inner strength against the idiocy that tries to convert all of us to perfect consumers of goods and slaves to the wage. Standing ones ground should be based on ultimate self-questioning though. And the next step, harder than anything I suppose, is to not be accepted/belieed, but actually find out if there is common ground between one and others.
I wouldn’t see it as that extreme. Sure, people who think they’ve already understood everything there is, are probably wrong and it’s not a great pleasure to discuss with them. On the other hand, it really depends on their way of discussing. I don’t mind a strong argument, if it is done in an honest way. People who show a pattern of using all kinds of rhetorical tricks to deflect and insinuate, … meh not worth it. Although I think it’s good for everyone to once or twice discuss with someone like that to learn about these mechanism and how bad they are.
I can tell more about political than about religious movements, although they could show similarities. Certain political movements show that “thinking” is simply not the solution to every obstacle in the real world of today. Things needs to change and they will change if enough people do something about it, because there is the actual need.
Yup, it’s another problem of individualism I think. It’s mostly pathetic, often hilariously embarassing. But yeah, a problem indeed.
Especially when a story is told and the “expert” is used instead of a rational argument or proof. However, if the person is actually just explaining stuff in a reasonable way, without pointing to unchallengable statistics (never trust in those you didn’t falsify yourself as they say), I think that everyone can be an expert for a bunch of things. Being able to accept that there is always someone who knows more about a thing than oneself, I think that’s a good way to keep on learning. It doesn’t mean to glorify them as the one-of-a-kind person who needs to be believed whatever they say, but it helps getting rid of own bias.
That really was a lot. I don’t know if I missed anything (possibly, probably), but I did my best to follow through with it. Thanks for this discussion and sorry for my shitty english. I think sometimes I say things in a too complicated way because I lack the verve in this language that would allow me to form shorter sentences and get to the point faster.