There are worlds beneath worlds...

[MrScorpio]

Last edited Thu May 16, 2013, 08:41 AM - Edit history (2)

Worlds within worlds and worlds above worlds.

Please bear with me a moment here.

How much trouble comes about when people fail to understand what these other worlds are about?

The first thing that one must realize is that perceptions can be manipulated, if the worldview is initially skewed, that could prevent an accurate assessment of the situation presented.

Minds that are already primed to only accept information from particular sources... Many of which are dedicated to misdirection and deception, are easily led astray.

Look for signs of this with confusion, a lack of understanding, confirming of prejudices, anger, bigotry, ignornance and an inability to understand and accept even basic truths.

These things are planned responses.

The goal is to hide the workings of those worlds and deceive those who may be exploited by the people who are served well by keeping their goings on secret.

These aren't conspiracies in the traditional sense. With proper access and comprehension, it could be a relatively achievable matter to reveal the what, who, when, where of things.

The first thing that you have tell yourself is that you don't understand enough. This mindset is essential in motivating a person to understand these things… And more.

The person who declares that they know everything (in the sense that they describe the deceptions as true and not the real nature) is the person who actually knows the least and serves as a tool to those who seek to keep their own stratified worlds, purposes and intentions hidden.

This becomes so painfully obvious when they are questioned for details and rational explanations. They wouldn't know a rational explanation if they saw it, especially if it derails their convenient worldview.

Someone who has proof of an argument would be all to happy to provide it. The person which doesn't have corroborating evident will either fall back on their false narrative as "proof", seek to change the subject, accuse the questioner, respond with anger or indignation or try to avoid a cogent response altogether.

(I made a couple of edits. I'd love for this idea to develop through discussion.)

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

1. Have you been reading Derrida?

Sounds like a bit of deconstructionism. Not that I disagree....

[MrScorpio]

4. Actually, No. I haven't read him…

Which unfortunately plays into my own fear that I'm always trying to tell people things that they already know, i.e., people who have read Derrida, per se.

I'm just making a personal observation. The last few days have given me a lot to think about and all this is, is a brain dump.

I'm not stipulating that I know all of this stuff… But some it is so freaking obvious to me, it's hard to keep it all in.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

5. You are much clearer than Derrida, who is painfully recondite.

I've never been able to get far with the Deconstructionists, although I tend to agree with them from what I can figure out. But their dense prose gives me a headache.

[MrScorpio]

7. I'm just a guy who has a high school education and who has seen a sliver of the world

Reading prose like that would probably impress upon me the possibility that the writer is being an arrogant prick who looks down on the fact that I haven't had the benefit of accessing his own stratified environment.

[The Velveteen Ocelot]

9. They are academics who write for each other.

So, basically you have hit the nail right on the head.

[MrScorpio]

10. It's just another form of gatekeeping

Most professions do this in one way or the other to maintain an air of legitimacy, authority and exclusivity.

Pretty much protecting their phony-baloney jobs.

[defacto7]

12. Love your post.

Insightful! But be careful... A circle is beginning to form. Don't make the same mistakes that you seem to perceive very well elsewhere.

"The person who declares that they know everything is the person who actually knows the least and serves as a tool....."

You don't know they don't know everything in a reasonable definition of the word everything. You still have to prove they don't before you can make an assumption. If you do put their ideas on trial in an open minded fashion, you may just learn a lot about the enemy... you also may find that they really are not the enemy or just have a perspective that's unusual. In any case you learn something instead of finding your conclusion has become your own brick wall.

[MrScorpio]

16. Thanks for your input

I made a clarification to that sentence. If it's not an elegant enough argument, I can smooth it out further.

[pinboy3niner]

14. DJs are the worst!

Just kidding.

[Newest Reality]

2. That is insightful.

[ismnotwasm]

3. Almost Koan like

Shuzan held out his short staff and said, "If you call this a short staff, you oppose its reality. If you do not call it a short staff, you ignore the fact. Now what do you wish to call this?"


But I agree. Learning should be a life-long process. And it's ok to say "I was wrong" and learn some more.

[AtheistCrusader]

13. "To ME it is a short staff"

"If I were shorter, it would just be a staff, to ME"

[Fumesucker]

6. Is this post brought to us by the numbers 80 and 20?

Just wondering..

[MrScorpio]

8. No, I haven't gone that far yet

I'm staying off of street corners as well.

[lovemydog]

11. I agree with you

As Thoreau said 'We think that that which is, is that which appears to be.' I only remember that quote because in college I was asked to write an essay on it, lol.

[MrScorpio]

15. Update! nt