Erroneous Conspiracy Paradigms

0 Points

Author	Comment
Ole Dude		#41	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Fri, Feb 6, 2009 10:31 AM	Assuming the verbiage was more Lippman than you, I seem to have comfortably assimilated and integrated an interpretation of a number of at first apparent inconsistencies evoked by your words. Perhaps I should wait and see where you intend to go with it rather than engaging in my usual anticipation which has at times led me to respond to things which you have not actually said. Continue and explain yourself, please.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#42	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Sat, Feb 7, 2009 9:29 AM	Thanks Lloyd. I think I have a better idea where you have been and where you are (psychologically speaking). People and groups can be many different things depending on their individual and socialized weltanschauungen. I had a somewhat different path. I experienced "the red in tooth and claw" perception of nature at the midpoint of my adult life, having up until then been rather apolitical except for having certain unanalyzed and blindly adopted beliefs typical of my Southern upbringing. Having had the opportunity to spend the bulk of my time contemplating and meditating for quite a few years now, I have developed a very different perspective than either of my earlier states produced. I now see "the red in tooth and claw" state as having been promoted by elite design. It serves the purpose of producing an intense state of stress and anxiety to promote reaction formations after which new beliefs and perceptions are more readily accepted (brainwashing). The peace and tranquility produced (artificially?) by adopting the new set of beliefs also has the affect of promoting the perception that those who administered the torture to begin with should be worshipped as gods. This is consistent with my perception of rule by witchcraft and deception according to the philosophical developments in the notion of empiricism. The kind of libertarianism that I now possess is one that allows and encourages freedom of thought and action absent the hidden god role playing that has been engineered into our social system. There IS something that can be done to improve the human condition. It is called awareness. My financial condition is not what it could have been, but I am no longer mentally ill like the rest of our society.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#43	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Sun, Feb 8, 2009 9:35 AM	Ole Dude wrote: I now see "the red in tooth and claw" state as having been promoted by elite design. Huh? Nature was "red in tooth and claw" before mankind evolved! What you are saying misses the point entirely. Dinosaurs had some pretty big teeth and claws! Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:59 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#44	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Sun, Feb 8, 2009 2:33 PM	You are obviously attempting to divert or trivialize the issue. Sociology is the field of study into the interactions of people under various conditions. It is one of the primary fields whose use is for social control and/or social engineering, obviously a priority of elite governance. This is another example of your behavior that leads me to believe that you are not as stupid as you might naively appear. It is from this data that I derive the hypothesis that you, not just members of your group, have been engaged in a hidden agenda.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#45	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Mon, Feb 9, 2009 1:30 PM	LloydMiller wrote: The unwashed and unschooled in the scientific method just projects instinctual archetypes like an animal. In born archetypes may be useful to an extent, but they don't represent the true knowledge available to the well educated and funded socialist bureaucrat. Your statement reflects a continuation of and apparent reflection of a tendency on your part to prefer Hegelian black and white thinking. Unthinking people like unthinking animals may indeed depend on inborn archetypes to interpret the world. A very similar process of interpretation also occurs unconsciously based on developed archetypes or stereotypes that have been internalized as well. This internalization may occur by osmosis of unstated beliefs of a cultural group or as the result of inherent inborn abductive reasoning processes. It also may occur in a more sophisticated and conscious form as is reflected in philosophical literature characteristic of pre-socratic writings and continuing through today. The relatively recent scientific method of Bacon was derived from philosophical, largely abductive reasoning. It is absurd to suggest that the scientific method displaces that of which it is a subset. The scientific method represents a useful restriction of the more general abductive processes that allows for a more mechanical application more conducive to capture and comprehension by and control of lesser or less dedicated minds.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#46	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Mon, Feb 9, 2009 9:45 PM	Ole Dude wrote: You are obviously attempting to divert or trivialize the issue. Sociology is the field of study into the interactions of people under various conditions. It is one of the primary fields whose use is for social control and/or social engineering, obviously a priority of elite governance. This is another example of your behavior that leads me to believe that you are not as stupid as you might naively appear. It is from this data that I derive the hypothesis that you, not just members of your group, have been engaged in a hidden agenda. No, the "natural law" of tooth and claw is normally ignored, just as you are doing. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:43 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#47	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Tue, Feb 10, 2009 11:12 AM	I guess that depends on how literal you take the expression "tooth and claw". Perhaps you think my disgust for deception and hidden agendas is a reflection of naivety. Actually I was accused of being a party to "everyone second guessing everyone else" in the closing days of my corporate apogee. I often prided myself in the game of luring my "superiors" out from the edge of a cliff just to watch them fall. I am beyond those days (even though I must admit to some kind of "evil" pleasure just remembering the incidents). I am well acquainted with "tooth and claw". I express my suspicions of you openly not to lure you out over a cliff but to encourage you to carefully overcome your suspicions of me.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#48	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:06 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Your statement reflects a continuation of and apparent reflection of a tendency on your part to prefer Hegelian black and white thinking. Hegel was no advocate of black and white thinking. His great insight was that ideas include their opposites. Jung, very much a Hegelian, carried this into his depth psychology. For instance, whenever, one has a positive idea of oneself, generally the "persona", there is an opposite or "shadow" idea of the self and even two contradictory personalities develop, one out front and the other hidden. The "right-wing conspiricist" interpretation of Hegel as primarily a method of political manipulation is silliness. Of course, Hegel's great (idealist) error in my opinion was the projecting of his analysis of "ideas" on external reality. No, reality is what it is. It does not contrain contradictions. Our ideas are necessarily conceived based on opposites perhaps to clarify thinking. No so reality, at least not in the same sense. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:42 PM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#49	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Sun, Feb 15, 2009 1:23 AM	Ole Dude wrote: LloydMiller wrote: The unwashed and unschooled in the scientific method just projects instinctual archetypes like an animal. In born archetypes may be useful to an extent, but they don't represent the true knowledge available to the well educated and funded socialist bureaucrat. Of course, the above is my interpretation of Lippmann. He unconscionably turns a truth into a justification for statism a la Plato's "philosopher Kings." The human can be considered to be a complex feedback mechanism. A feedback mechanism has various "settings" either permanent (inborn) or acquired. For instance, a thermostat can be preset to one temperature, say 70 deg. F. or it can be adjustable with a dial (or digital screen). The thermostat "turns off and on or modulates" a furnace attempting to make room temperature match its preset or adjusted setpoint. Likewise, a human being has setpoints, but many many thousands of setpoints instead of just one. In my view, Jung was really talking about these "setpoints" when he talked of archetypes and instincts. Not all the archetypes are active simultaneously. They are brought forward by happenstance in the environment, ie. as the need arises. For instance, in a fear provoking situation archetypes of "fight or flight" specific to a species may rise to the surface of consciousness which then influence behaviour toward survival. The first reaction to danger may be quite imperfect, but with practice, the human learns to match his behaviour to these inborn archetypes for best results. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#50	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Mon, Feb 16, 2009 6:03 PM	LloydMiller wrote: The "right-wing conspiricist" interpretation of Hegel as primarily a method of political manipulation is silliness. You have stated that the use (misuse) of the Hegelian dialectic for political manipulation is silly yet you have provided no evidence to support your contention. For much of my life I have observed presentations purported to be a balanced view of a two sided issue. Careful consideration usually reveals that the alternative views actually represent the limits of viewpoints considered politically correct. Truly alternative views falling outside these limits are most likely labeled "extremist" and discarded from further consideration. Do you mean to suggest this observation is a mistake? Or do you simply agree that this method of defacto censorship is for the public good? The Delphi Method developed by the Rand Corporation is a sophisticated development based on the Hegelian Dialectic. There are certainly legitimate applications of this method to achieve consensus. There have been discussions of the misuse of this method to manufacture consensus as well. I present one below. Do you really wish to use the ridicule argument popularized by the mass media and parroted by your now absent recent list participants, or might you consider the issue based on its intellectual merits? Note that on attempting to access this site I am presented with a warning by my web browser suggesting that accessing the site might be dangerous to the health of my computer.....Is this a form of suppression? Or is Microsoft really going to punish me for viewing the page that it disapproves of? Excerpt from: https://www.sott.net/articles/show/109667-9-MIND-CONTROL-IN-THE-21st-CENTURY-COERCIVE-PERSUASION-vs-SIMPLE-PERSUASION COERCIVE PERSUASION AND SOCIETY One can only guess as to how much Coercive Persuasion has affected Americans over the last 20 - 30 years. There should be no doubt that it has been used within group applications, affecting millions of people. One of the more common applications of Coercive Persuasion is witnessed in a perversion of the Rand Corporations "Delphi Technique," which leads to the topic of "Manufactured Consensus." Coercive Persuasion is now evidenced in its techniques being sneaked into Corporate America, through "management consulting" or "productivity services." How often does America hear the Coercive Persuasion terminology such as "politically correct," "team player" or "diversity training?" The potential for Coercive Persuasion is only limited by the magnitude of nefarious intent and the imagination of its managers. Persuasive Coercion is an unregulated technology, used to "invisibly" exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of the targeted individuals. Unfortunately, it is being naïve to not assume that the magnetic power of Persuasive Coercion is too inviting not to be improved further. In the Lord Acton statement, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Tragically, few appreciate the fact that Coercive Persuasion has the power to overcome normal freedom of thought, undercutting any or all of mans other freedoms. In a time of massive corruption, its no longer safe to say that its "strange" that national or international laws dont explicitly make Coercive Persuasion or any methodology of "thought reform" a crime. Most people assume that their own minds and thought processes are somewhere between sacred and invulnerable. An "Immortality Complex" leads the typical individual to the false conclusion that they cant be appreciably manipulated. Its a given that people prefer to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, opinions, values and attitudes are totally self-regulated. Interestingly, when confronted, the same self-assuming individuals will incrementally admit to such personal weaknesses as advertising or high-pressure sales tactics. However, they will still insist in preserving a rather transparent myth, asserting that only other people are weak minded and easily conned or influenced. But, they insist, they are "strong minded." Often, a designer surface logic is employed to bypass critical thought processes. For example, the "American" family value system may be attacked in a passionate and convincing voice - by citing the "terrible" family value system that "American" children abandon their parents in their older years; while the children of other countries do not. The argument works, until one goes to a deeper level and argues, that their parents paid for their own Social Security retirement three times over and have been told for the third time that they still are not old enough to collect a dime. Still, the "surface logic" ("first-up" effect) comes up as a powerful persuasion device, usurping rational thought processes, to easily impose a different logic. Still, most people entertain at least a fantasy that manipulators might confront, browbeat, and argue other people into doing their bidding. In that perspective, they commonly picture the forces of "Big Brother" in Nazi storm trooper boots, holding guns to peoples heads; forcing such persons to totally alter their beliefs and their personalities to willingly accept a new and safe ideology. Amazingly, George Orwells book, "1984" has become a classic for all time. The underlying message being that anyone is vulnerable to manipulation, whether overt and brutal, or subtle and covert. The Hollywood line of "Every man has a price" should not be perceived in terms of dollar amounts, versus the more immediate price of a sacred value, such as the immediate survival of self or loved ones. Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:47 PM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#51	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Mon, Feb 16, 2009 6:11 PM	For some unknown reason the quote in my last post appeared yellowed out on my computer after having posted it. I repeat the quote here after and intermediate copy. Hopefully it will appear ok. http://www.sott.net/artic...SION-vs-SIMPLE-PERSUASION COERCIVE PERSUASION AND SOCIETY One can only guess as to how much Coercive Persuasion has affected Americans over the last 20 - 30 years. There should be no doubt that it has been used within group applications, affecting millions of people. One of the more common applications of Coercive Persuasion is witnessed in a perversion of the Rand Corporations "Delphi Technique," which leads to the topic of "Manufactured Consensus." Coercive Persuasion is now evidenced in its techniques being sneaked into Corporate America, through "management consulting" or "productivity services." How often does America hear the Coercive Persuasion terminology such as "politically correct," "team player" or "diversity training?" The potential for Coercive Persuasion is only limited by the magnitude of nefarious intent and the imagination of its managers. Persuasive Coercion is an unregulated technology, used to "invisibly" exploit the psychological vulnerabilities of the targeted individuals. Unfortunately, it is being naïve to not assume that the magnetic power of Persuasive Coercion is too inviting not to be improved further. In the Lord Acton statement, "Power corrupts; absolute power corrupts absolutely." Tragically, few appreciate the fact that Coercive Persuasion has the power to overcome normal freedom of thought, undercutting any or all of mans other freedoms. In a time of massive corruption, its no longer safe to say that its "strange" that national or international laws dont explicitly make Coercive Persuasion or any methodology of "thought reform" a crime. Most people assume that their own minds and thought processes are somewhere between sacred and invulnerable. An "Immortality Complex" leads the typical individual to the false conclusion that they cant be appreciably manipulated. Its a given that people prefer to believe that their thoughts, beliefs, opinions, values and attitudes are totally self-regulated. Interestingly, when confronted, the same self-assuming individuals will incrementally admit to such personal weaknesses as advertising or high-pressure sales tactics. However, they will still insist in preserving a rather transparent myth, asserting that only other people are weak minded and easily conned or influenced. But, they insist, they are "strong minded." Often, a designer surface logic is employed to bypass critical thought processes. For example, the "American" family value system may be attacked in a passionate and convincing voice - by citing the "terrible" family value system that "American" children abandon their parents in their older years; while the children of other countries do not. The argument works, until one goes to a deeper level and argues, that their parents paid for their own Social Security retirement three times over and have been told for the third time that they still are not old enough to collect a dime. Still, the "surface logic" ("first-up" effect) comes up as a powerful persuasion device, usurping rational thought processes, to easily impose a different logic. Still, most people entertain at least a fantasy that manipulators might confront, browbeat, and argue other people into doing their bidding. In that perspective, they commonly picture the forces of "Big Brother" in Nazi storm trooper boots, holding guns to peoples heads; forcing such persons to totally alter their beliefs and their personalities to willingly accept a new and safe ideology. Amazingly, George Orwells book, "1984" has become a classic for all time. The underlying message being that anyone is vulnerable to manipulation, whether overt and brutal, or subtle and covert. The Hollywood line of "Every man has a price" should not be perceived in terms of dollar amounts, versus the more immediate price of a sacred value, such as the immediate survival of self or loved ones. Last Edited By: return2reason Wed, Feb 18, 2009 2:55 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#52	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 8:34 AM	Ole Dude wrote: You have stated that the use (misuse) of the Hegelian dialectic for political manipulation is silly yet you have provided no evidence to support your contention. I never said anything meaning the above. I said right-wing "conspiricists" are silly in their interpretation of Hegel. The rest of your posts seems contingent on your initial misapprehension of what I said. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:48 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#53	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 8:51 AM	Ole Dude wrote: For example, the "American" family value system may be attacked in a passionate and convincing voice - by citing the "terrible" family value system that "American" children abandon their parents in their older years; while the children of other countries do not. The argument works, until one goes to a deeper level and argues, that their parents paid for their own Social Security retirement three times over and have been told for the third time that they still are not old enough to collect a dime. Still, the "surface logic" ("first-up" effect) comes up as a powerful persuasion device, usurping rational thought processes, to easily impose a different logic. Hmmm? Is this paragraph garbled? I'm not sure I'm grasping his point about Social Security. Do most people really abandon their parents in America? Is it caused or justified by Social Security. . . ? I don't get the point. Frankly, I don't see people abandoning their parents when then parents have no means of support though I suppose it happens with some small minority people. Also, I see a lot of old people at least "getting by" on Social Security. . . In most cases, I see grown children stopping by to help them out as required or letting them move in with them which the parents often resist to their own detriment. Family generally finds a nursing home within their means or via Medicaid/Medicare when parents can't take care of themselves and their problems are too severe to stay with children or relatives. My "statistical sample" is not only my own family and aacquantances, but the 1000s of people I have provided heating and cooling service for over the decades. . . Getting back to manipulation: The author seems to want to blur the differences between real coercion, social pressure, and "slick fallacies." Yaaaa!, ya gotta stay really alert to avoid being manipulated or even falling into error completely on your own! The most disheartening thing about the Obama campaign and the initial weeks of his Presidency is the total lack of substance in everything he says. . . total emotional manipulation, fear-mongering, etc. . . pathetic that the people, lead by the major media, went along. . . Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:50 PM. Edited 2 times.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#54	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 6:49 PM	LloydMiller wrote: The "right-wing conspiricist" interpretation of Hegel as primarily a method of political manipulation is silliness. was your statement. I can see a variance of my interpretation only in the relative significance of "primarily". Without that word does the statement convey your original meaning? If so my exception to your statement still applies. If not what purpose could you have possibly had in making the statement other than to make an implied negative association between the evil or ridiculous connotation of "right wing conspiracist" created by the media and the uses of Hegelian concepts (perhaps wrongly) for political manipulation purposes? Please explain as in either event I seem to detect a hidden agenda to discard what I view as a significant issue from further consideration without intellectual consideration. In regard to your post responding to the quotation I made, I am sorry I cannot provide enlightenment on what the author meant. The purpose of the quote was as documentation of the misuse of the Hegelian Dialectic via misapplication of the Delphi Technique. This documentation was embedded in a broader discussion of coercive persuasion (brain washing). I included extra paragraphs to assure the context was available. Of course coercive persuasion is a very relevant topic in its own right which seems to be being covered up by ridiculous connotations of "mind control" (the tin hat variety) in your section on mind control. Again I detect a common media generated misperception or diversion that makes me further question the agenda of one with your mental statue.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#55	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Tue, Feb 17, 2009 7:49 PM	Ole Dude wrote: LloydMiller wrote: The "right-wing conspiricist" interpretation of Hegel as primarily a method of political manipulation is silliness. was your statement. I can see a variance of my interpretation only in the relative significance of "primarily". Without that word does the statement convey your original meaning? If so my exception to your statement still applies. If not what purpose could you have possibly had in making the statement other than to make an implied negative association between the evil or ridiculous connotation of "right wing conspiracist" created by the media and the uses of Hegelian concepts (perhaps wrongly) for political manipulation purposes? Ole Dude wrote: You have stated that the use (misuse) of the Hegelian dialectic for political manipulation is silly yet you have provided no evidence to support your contention. I said the right-wing conspiricist INTERPRETATION of Hegel is silly. You said I said the use (misuse) of the dialectic for political manipulation is silly. Two completely different concepts. Two different SUBJECTS in the two sentences! I'm saying the right-wing conspiricists who constantly prate about Hegel (like Sutton) don't know what they are talking about when they speak of Hegel and I fear they have influenced you. Of course, there is mental manipulation operant in our world from the HARD torture based persuasion to HYPNOTISM to TIN FOIL HAT/Drug measures to social pressure to logical trickery, etc. I think Tin Foil Hat mental measures are quite likely to exist. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#56	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Wed, Feb 18, 2009 12:27 PM	Your perception that I have been influenced by "right wing conspiracist" theories is a projection of an image you (and the whole country) have been indoctrinated with. This type of indoctrination is perhaps the most prevalent form of "mind control" going at the moment. In addition to biasing your observations it suppresses freedom of expression via the fear of one's words evoking such nonsensical images in the minds of an indoctrinated social milieu. Remember how I once evoked a statement and apparent perception on your part that I might be suffering from a paranoid personality disorder. I was aware of such possible reactions (and that one specifically) long before I saw the psychologist at the direction of the court 15 years ago. As I have indicated to you, he stated in his report specifically that I am not paranoid (regardless of people's frequent indoctrinated perception). He also stated, for the consideration of the court I suppose, that "I had all the bases covered". That peeps frequently misperceive me does not surprise me generally for I have developed a personal weltanschauung that has significant differences from the one most peeps have been programmed with. One of the (mis?)perceptions I had adoptd into my weltanschauung was that intelligent, well-read, and insightful people, such as yourself would be unlikely to make such stereotypical assessments. Perhaps I should review my belief rather than continuing with the alternative perception that your behavior is a result of a conscious hidden agenda. Perhaps an alternative assessment would be to presume you have indeed been taken in by the mass media indoctrination and are being guided by an agenda hidden even from you. To say the least such mental machinations could be avoided if you could refrain from unstated presumptions about my apparent beliefs. This is why I have promoted the rule of open and direct communications. Making the direct statement that you perceive me as a nut case is much preferable to your assuming same and assuming a clinical attitude characteristic of a mental institution as exemplified by the play "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest" Now do you still consider me to be a nut case? And if you do please explain the source of your perception to better enable me to assess whether the disorder is based in me, you, or the social milieu at large.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#57	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Wed, Feb 18, 2009 6:00 PM	Ole Dude wrote: Your perception that I have been influenced by "right wing conspiracist" theories is a projection of an image you (and the whole country) have been indoctrinated with. No, I am simply questioning your understanding of Hegel! You are referring to the "Hegelian Dialectic" in precisely the same way as other conspiracy theorists and I happen to think that frame of reference is an error! I am not desparaging your opinion BECAUSE it may be shared with "disreputable" conspiracy theorists! I am a disreputable conspiracy theorist myself! An appropriate response to my comment would be to elucidate your understanding of Hegel and, thereby, show that I am wrong. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:55 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#58	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Fri, Feb 20, 2009 4:16 PM	Actually I was first introduced to a perhaps distorted view of the Hegelian dialectic via informal training I received for making presentations to upper management during my strategic planning tour. It was presented as the problem-solution model. To create a degree of disturbance in the audience' psyche in order to gain their attention and consideration followed by a solution that enabled them to have some relief from the tension created. I was indeed later introduced to the (perhaps also distorted) version of thesis antithesis synthesis. I understand that Hegel attributed this formulation to Kant which was followed up by Fichte. I understand that Hegel preferred the terms Abstract-Negative-Concrete or Immediate-Mediated-Concrete. I am aware that a proper application of Hegelian Dialectics is to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit which leads to ongoing rounds of synthesis. The misusage of the concept, as identified perhaps by writers associated with the right wing, is what is important to us in our discussion of how we are (mis?)ruled by an elite. As I have pointed out, for example, there are legitimate applications for the Delphi Technique, a derivative of the Hegelian Dialectic, but the potential for abuse (manufactured consensus) stands out as a major concern for all but the most naive among us. The (mis?)practice of presenting manufactured "balanced" views which in actuality represent the limits of politically correct views with anything outside this range being classified as extremist is the second example I have presented. Perhaps your appropriate response would be to respond to the examples that I have repeated here first and then deal with the diversion as to whether the term is being used according to Hegel's specifications. Remember even Marx declared that he was not a Marxist.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
LloydMiller		#59	[url]	[-]
Posts: 593 Sun, Feb 22, 2009 8:54 AM	Ole Dude wrote: Actually I was first introduced to a perhaps distorted view of the Hegelian dialectic via informal training I received for making presentations to upper management during my strategic planning tour. It was presented as the problem-solution model. To create a degree of disturbance in the audience' psyche in order to gain their attention and consideration followed by a solution that enabled them to have some relief from the tension created. Lloyd Sez: I would challenge you to find any trace of such a focus on mental manipulation of others in Hegel. I could be wrong, having read very little of Hegel directly, only covering him in Philosophical survey courses and books. The "Dialectic" concept appears to trace back to Plato's "Dialogues." In my interpretation, the Dialogues were presented as a method of approaching truth, but the cynic or conspiricist, of course, might deduce the Dialogues are really about persuasion or even manipulation of the thinking of others. That is, generally, however, NOT the "accepted" concept of Plato's Socrates. Plato's Socrates is generally assumed to be a disinterested "seeker of truth", not a manipulator. My understanding of Hegel, an "idealist" like Berkeley (external reality doesn't exist, ONLY ideas exist--ideas in the mind of God of which the individual or human group shares only a small part), thought he discovered or proved the "laws" by which ideas evolve: thesis, antithesis, synthesis (he may have used different words--well, he was German). This, it was my impression, was a law completely independent of any efforts by individuals or groups to persuade or mentally manipulate. Hegel created a great excitement in his time. People all over the world thought they had insight into how ideas and the products of ideas, Groups, Social Organisms, the State, and History evolve. Collectivists loved him. Marx, of course, shared in the excitement, but denied Hegel's "idealism," and, instead, claimed absurdly that material reality followed Hegels evolutionary laws based on resolving contradictions between thesis and antithesis. In a prior post I mis-spoke in claiming Hegel projected his theory of ideas on external reality. Actually, Hegel denied external reality. Of course, I have a hard time accepting "idealist" concepts and continue to labor under the delusion that groups, the State, History, etc. reside in external reality not just "the mind." I am no scholar of philsophical schools, so I am the first to admit I could very well be wrong in my interpreation of some or all of the great Philosophical Schools. I am more confident of the substance of what I think than that of what other think. [Lloyd said] I was indeed later introduced to the (perhaps also distorted) version of thesis antithesis synthesis. I understand that Hegel attributed this formulation to Kant which was followed up by Fichte. I understand that Hegel preferred the terms Abstract-Negative-Concrete or Immediate-Mediated-Concrete. I am aware that a proper application of Hegelian Dialectics is to proceed by making implicit contradictions explicit which leads to ongoing rounds of synthesis. The misusage of the concept, as identified perhaps by writers associated with the right wing, is what is important to us in our discussion of how we are (mis?)ruled by an elite. As I have pointed out, for example, there are legitimate applications for the Delphi Technique, a derivative of the Hegelian Dialectic, but the potential for abuse (manufactured consensus) stands out as a major concern for all but the most naive among us. The (mis?)practice of presenting manufactured "balanced" views which in actuality represent the limits of politically correct views with anything outside this range being classified as extremist is the second example I have presented. Perhaps your appropriate response would be to respond to the examples that I have repeated here first and then deal with the diversion as to whether the term is being used according to Hegel's specifications. Remember even Marx declared that he was not a Marxist. There can be little doubt that persuasion and/or the mental manipulation of others is possible. There may indeed be a "science" of mental manipulation. I think I agree with some aspects of such a science as you have identified above. But is it "Hegelian"? That is what I am questioning. I agree, for instance, that by "advocating" a polar extreme effectively one might shift the center of gravity of public opinion in that direction but get no where near acheiving the polar extreme. Looking back, I think that was my semi-unconscious strategy (along with others?) when I became a "libertarian extremist" back in the 1960s. Indeed, the extreme "libertarian movement" which descends from Ayn Rand, Rothbard and others may well have had that effect and created a respite from the COLLECTIVIST, STATIST trend of the 20th Century (now resuming?). But would it be sensible to say the "libertarian movement" was using Hegelian Dialectics to advocate STATE CAPITALISM (as synthesis) when pushing "libertarianism" as an "antithesis" to the "thesis" of "socialism". No, libertarians simply wanted to move toward and may have succeeded for a while in moving a bit toward individual liberty. Lloyd Miller, Research Director A-albionic Research Book Inventory Liquidation Auction / Sale Last Edited By: LloydMiller Sun, Apr 25, 2010 12:52 PM. Edited 1 time.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote
Ole Dude		#60	[url]	[-]
Posts: 205 Sun, Feb 22, 2009 10:45 AM	The question of whether it is strictly Hegelian or not seems about as important as whether the Marxist movement was strictly according to Marx, as I suggested in my last post. I also classify individual strategies of influence in a different category than institutional strategies, especially when the institution has significant monopoly power. In addition I make a distinction between what a thinker may have intended and the frequently distorted application of his thinking for purposes for which he may not have been aware. In some cases a thinker may have been aware of devious expressions, for example, to avoid persecution by the Church. We have had similar misunderstandings before. The issue of disparaging the corporate form of business was one in which you objected to my seeming blanket appraisal. It seems my views were more acceptable when I made it clear I was referring to large corporations with at least a degree of monopoly power. Another case which you did not openly object to was the use to which British Empiricist thinking supports rule of a mass indoctrinated with the scientific method via concepts much closer to witchcraft and deception. The problem, in my view, arises not so much from individual (mis?)application of the concepts, which seems to fall into the laissez faire category of buyer beware. It arises under conditions of monopoly power, such as the defacto power of the mass media, which influences the milieu at large stimulating not questioning and growing awareness but conformity and defacto punishment for not going with the crowd. I was able to withstand the harsh treatment from multiple directions that I encountered when entering this group and have prevailed to some extent. I hesitate to accept your invitation to Facebook, however, because I suspect it is but an extension of the collectivist pressure for conformity (within designated limits) that already dominates the social milieu at large. It is this pressure for conformity, which you consciously or unconsciously advance, exemplified by an initial unintellectual disparagement of the topic of the Hegelian Dialectic that I have objected to. Hopefully this reply will make it obvious why accepting your challenge would be useless and yet another diversion. Whether you challenge is correct or incorrect simply does not matter to the issue at hand.
My Recent Posts	Reply Quote

Yuku free message boards

Erroneous Conspiracy Paradigms