Consider What You’ll LOSE for Thinking Differently

I’m starting to feel sympathy for those who maintain their hallucinations. They simply cannot control it and to believe otherwise would result in their destruction (from their perspective).

It’s not about REASON. It’s about SELF-INTEREST to pass on one’s genes.

If you happen to perceive yourself to potentially lose the following by dissenting from the Collective, can you necessarily blame their minds from protecting them from utter, genetic destruction?

You might as well be asking them to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger.

I have friends (in Los Angeles & Seattle) that for merely holding Trump sympathetic views have essentially risked all five of the below. They remain silent about it, but they talk to me to vent.

1) Sexual partner
2) Friends & family
3) Job
4) Hopes
5) Past

I imagine being in the situation my friends are in, trapped from being able to truly express who they are. Their only option is to flee the insanity and enter an area where they won’t be punished. Where they can have a chance to procreate.

Otherwise, the mind must self-sabotage. Stop the questioning. They must convince themselves to agree with the Collective. Or they will go insane.

It is the mind’s mercy to shut down free-thought.

REASON is overrated.

=====

And if you consider that you have a family to raise, that’s an even greater incentive for you to shut your mind down. Much more evil things, than entertaining different views, have occurred for the “sake of the children.”

Rhetoric, Dialectic, Pseudo-Dialectic Debate (Individualism vs Collectivism)

I have to give credit to Vox Day (@VoxDay) and his book “SJWs Always Lie: Taking Down the Thought Police”, specifically Chapter 10, in helping me reframe many of the discussions I’ve attempted to have with various colleagues on Facebook.

Yes, I can already feel your eyes roll. I was THAT naive to believe everyone operated on the Dialectic level.

 

Overly Simplistic Definitions:

Dialectic – inquiry into metaphysical contradictions and their solutions. Aristotle tradition of inquiry.

Rhetoric – language designed to have a persuasive or impressive effect on its audience, but often regarded as lacking in sincerity or meaningful content.

Pseudo-Dialectic – speech that uses some Dialectic keywords but in nonsensical / contradictory ways to amount to Rhetoric substance

 

If you’re a masochist, read on, and see if you can locate examples of each type. One is in picture form, and the other is in copy-pasta form.
https://goo.gl/photos/uYGMHXGSTiA1AwdY9

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1jQDrIXFlDCLeEj9rLg8Fxbc9lZGsw6pxktIM8uy4Swc/edit

The Asian Man Triggered by Donald Trump

An Asian male threw this out as a basis against Trump’s character which thus disqualifies him as President. In a moment of clarity, my various collisions with psychology were brought together to analyze the psyche of the “Asian man.” For those of you that have been involved in the leadership of Korean churches, you may relate. Here was my response:

I don’t think anyone is worthy or unworthy of “support” based on a joke. It’s irrelevant to the discussion and you’re only throwing it out because you have an emotional, visceral reaction on something that can’t be objectified.

Perhaps you are triggered by successful, assertive, white males, that have a sense of humor. Lots of Asians tend to have problems with that due to their upbringing and how they’re told what is “proper” and “good manners.” Asian men tend to be “beta” by definition due to the collectivist values of Confucianism.

Trump embodies the blazen Individualism for which Asian cultures shame against. I can understand why many Asian men feel threatened by that. Asian churches are even worse in terms of shaming individualism.

Trump just happens to bring those insecurities to the surface and then the beta males will attempt to make up various excuses to justify the feelings that are being triggered without realizing the underlying programming they received that leads them to feel threatened in the first place.

The Formative Moment of the Rest of My Life (and the Story I Tell Myself)

The end of 6th grade marked the celebration of finishing elementary school where all the soon-to-be graduates in the school district would go to Camp Orkila for about a week. It was incredible fun full of cute girls, hyper boys, cheesy campy activities, “counselor” High School students even more sexually frustrated, and some teacher chaperons (see photo album: https://goo.gl/photos/VGdk2X5iFTyVurEH9).  When the buses arrived back at school for the parents to pick up their kids, my best friend’s mother picked me up instead of my mom. When I came home, someone in my family greeted me and showed me immediately to the Master Bedroom closet. It was empty, because my mother decided she couldn’t stay. She wouldn’t return to that house again and I wouldn’t have meaningful contact until I was 20.

What followed were months of fetal crying and brokenness as many young children who are abandoned by their mothers would react. I think I generally was hurt less than others may had been since there was never a particularly strong emotional connection between myself and my mother. Regardless, it’s still painful to feel abandoned and unwanted.

That summer, I went to a Korean-American Youth Group church retreat with a left arm in a sling from when I took a one armed turn on a bicycle while pressing the front brakes. Through an emotionally intense, “last night” worship session, I prayed the “sinner’s prayer” of brokenness and “accepted Christ in my heart.” The intense negative emotions associated with my mother’s abandonment were channeled toward an intense sense of “original sin” guilt and Christ’s crucifixion as the fix.

My 7th grade year was very awkward. It’s awkward for anyone newly entering middle school, but with the fairly recent abandonment and emotional development retardation, I believe the issues may had been amplified (see photo album: https://goo.gl/photos/3bUN1se2NFyzCKUW9). Somewhere toward the middle of the year, I was in my basement bedroom full of spiders and strange noises next to the boiler room. Stricken with emotion and determination from a source I cannot fully place, I lay prostrate on the ground crying. Inside my mind I had the image of the television depictions of kids with divorced parents that are sitting on a couch while crying with intense guilt since they blamed themselves for their parent’s divorce. “It’s my fault my parents divorced!” the TV child star wails. The child would be inconsolable and essentially turn into a useless, despondent, unproductive mush for the remainder of the show being a BURDEN.

As that image played in my head, I think I felt I had to make a choice. I could either surrender to my grief, or I could fight. Prostate on my knees; pounding the ground with my fists; that day I chose: “What do you need a mother for? So what? You have the infinite God of Love on your side. THE HEAVENLY FATHER. He is the only Father you need. If you have Him, you have more than enough.” With that pep talk, I “hardened.” I’m not sure what the best descriptive work is, but whatever fears, or concerns, or perceived weaknesses in my mind preventing me from achieving what I wanted, I was determined to not let stand in my way. I held disdain for that loser of a child blaming themselves for their parent’s divorce. I was NOT going to be a VICTIM. I was going to be a WINNER. I will succeed no matter the circumstances (At that time, my little 12 year old mind probably limited my biggest obstacle to only the mother abandonment emotions, and not things I had yet to experience or comprehend).

Toward the end of that school year, I ended up taking a chance on the school’s talent show playing some classical music entirely on my own initiative. It seemed to impress a lot of my peers and teachers and that was perhaps one of the first times I had “accomplished” something without anyone dictating my actions. From there, various risks I took lead to success (and some failures which I didn’t really care about), and I gradually discovered what I excelled at more than my peers, and what I sucked at (ie. Track & Field). With each success, confidence grew. With each failure, I knew I just needed to have discipline to practice and eventually conquer or reassess if it was something worth it to me to invest the resources to succeed.

Whenever I’d feel the inevitable hot, red face of embarrassment, or the “butterflies in the stomach,” I would simply draw from that same determination on my basement floor and push through. I did that at least until I had enough confidence in my previous accomplishments, became more comfortable with failure, and my body and mind became accustomed toward my sometimes socially risky behavior.

CHOICE & FREE WILL?
The common narrative I tell myself is that I’m constantly making the “choice” to be an INITIATOR and not the PROCRASTINATOR. At this point, I have lived so long as an Initiator and seen the great benefits, it’s difficult for me to remain passive. It takes more effort for me to NOT act. I am a fighter. I am a doer.

But, I wonder how it all started. From that moment in my bedroom I felt I had to make a “choice” between surrendering or fighting. It didn’t seem as though that choice was mundane, but it felt as though it was an EPIC choice which would determine the FATE of the rest of my life. I SAW the vision in my mind of the LOSER life, and it sickened me. And I wanted to crush it. And I gained ambition from someplace.

Perhaps one could say it was the Holy Spirit. Perhaps one could say it was psychological inspiration from a perceived “higher power.” Perhaps it was genetics? Perhaps my brain responds to grief with a “fight” rather than “flight” response? I can’t say exactly, but can I necessarily claim it was entirely by my “own strength of character” that I made the “right” choice?

I just don’t know what that means anymore since it’s hard for me to imagine today to ever demand a grieving 12 year old to “stop crying and man the FUCK UP!” How horrendous that would be for a full grown adult or parent to say that to a child abandoned by their mother!? What kind of monster would say such a thing!? We would coddle that child and salve their emotional wounds with affection. Yet, from someplace, inside my little head, that loud voice is what got me to push forward.

In my delusional mind, I try to take 100% credit and thus make myself out to be some kind of “hero.” But in reality, how can a 12 year old really be fully responsible for ANY of their actions? Nevertheless, it does seem to be the narrative I run with, and it seems to work well in increasing my personal energy.

It’s just that when I write out this formative experience, trying to take 100% credit for the “choice” of 12-year-old me seems a little absurd. But if it wasn’t 100% “free will,” then what the hell was it?

Jonathan Haidt, “The Righteous Mind,” Questions on Moral Relativism

I’m going through the audio book on “The Righteous Mind” and just passed the section where Haidt discusses Kantian deontology as though it’s only one of five “tastes” of the tongue, and then stating that a restaurant that only had “sweet” as its only item on the menu would not be popular.

From a purely Descriptive point of view, I agree that Libertarian ethics hinges on the “single flavor” of the “Non-Aggression Principle.” I would also agree that Libertarians have a messaging problem since they insist that people must have ideologies that are logically consistent for which most people have difficulty maintaining. In the book’s example, Haidt demonstrates that the Elephant (AKA Emotion) is the main driver of people’s beliefs rather than the Rider (AKA Higher Intellect). Or, in another metaphor, the “tail wags the dog.”

Now going from a Descriptive to a Moral Declaration, is Haidt’s position essentially that each “perspective” is just as “valid” as another perspective? Is Haidt’s premise essentially moral relativism?

Would Haidt say that claiming you have the absolute truth on morality to be, within itself, an immoral act?

=====

Coming from a Platonic / Aristotle view on metaphysical laws of Reason:

1) Identity
2) Non-Contradiction
3) Causality

I’m having difficulty seeing how contradicting ideologies are equally just as morally, and objectively true to each other. How can stealing be both moral and immoral? Or Rape? or Slavery? or Murder?

Or to take it beyond politics, how can there be both a God and not be a God? For there to exist an individual, and not an individual? “Free Will” to exist and not exist?

How Seth Godin Inspired Me to Live Out Loud

How Seth Godin Manages His Life — Rules, Principles, and Obsessions

Listening to Seth Godin resonated with me and compels me to change away from the path of destruction, for which I would exchange the chance for additional monetary wealth with silence.

Out of fear that my anti-Statist and controversial views may prevent me from being approved for tax incentives in Puerto Rico for a 4% tax rate, I placed all my Facebook posts to “private.” I also stopped posting to my blog.

I then started to realize that if I were to be accepted into the tax incentive, move to Puerto Rico, and then discover that in order for me to maintain the special tax incentive would mean that I would have to keep my Free Market views secret, I realized that I could not live my life that way.

At least for a weirdo like me, who can see through the BS that is our society, the moral indignation alone would make me a miserable person.

How can I sit idly by and not at least bring to people’s attention the Truth for which I see. I’ve been imbued with a BIG MOUTH, and to silence that would silence my very being and self-expression.

Pointing out intellectual contradictions is an art form for me. For me to point out and mock the obvious seems to be my calling. Or at least, a hobby for which takes up significant time.

I’m a thinker. I’m a questioner. I’m a deviant.

And if that causes Puerto Rico to reject me, then it’s better now, than after I relocate my family.

=====

Another thing that Seth Godin inspired me to do is to write more often on my blog. I already do so on my Facebook posts, but now I’m thinking I’ll primarily write on the blog first and then copy and paste into Facebook.

At least for now, I seem to be getting a lot more “reads” from my personal Facebook page.

I’ve also contemplated doing a morning Podcast with daily musings on current events and articles I read on LewRockwell.com. At least for now, the time sink it requires and my inspiration seems to vary morning to morning. Sometimes, I don’t really have anything worthwhile to say for 30 minutes.

Free Will Versus Determinism Debate and Implications on Morality

The “Free Will” vs. “Determinism” debate has implications on morality. Even within the Christian tradition, the debate between Arminianism and Pre-Destination Calvinists has been an ongoing debate.

Individualism, separate consciousness, and concepts of the “ego” are additional implications of this debate. Life, Liberty, and Personal Property seem to be predicated on “Free Will.”

As I’ve come to understand the influence childhood trauma and mental illness has on the actions and thought patterns of my own self and my loved ones, in addition to dealing with the psychological, fallacious thinking of others in terms of objective reality screaming in their face, I’ve become less and less willing to attempt to “change” people’s minds. What’s the point if the individual really doesn’t have much “free will” to actually change their thought patterns?

If a psychopath is not morally responsible for a mass murder due to a physical brain tumor rendering him incapable of restraining his impulses, then to what degree can an individual be held responsible for the indoctrination they received through Public School?

To what degree can a Bernie Sander’s supporter be blamed for dehumanizing “Capitalists” in order to internally, and morally justify their envy and theft? Their minds already are set to steal from and punish those who have more than them, and then they develop a mental construct in their mind to morally justify such actions. This concept of “dehumanization” can also be applied to Neo-Cons advocating for the murder of innocents in the Middle East and shrugging it off as, “Collateral Damage” or “those people.” But the root of dehumanizing attempts is to apply morality to entire groups of people, rather than toward individuals.

Within Christianity I see parallels within the concept of “hard hearts.” God has already chosen the “select” for which would become receptive toward the Gospel, or would turn away from it. If the infinite riches of God’s love is not enough to turn hearts (assuming if this is true), who am I to somehow believe that those who support initiating violence on other individuals can be swayed with the mere use of reason?

How does a victim appeal to the victimizer from initiating violence to take what they want? If Reason was not the original motivator, then why would I think Reason would have any effect?

But once again, the concepts of the “Non-Aggression principle” seem to be predicated on this notion of “free will?” Or is it?

I’ll have to consider this further.

 

Anti-Intellectualism’s Prevelance

TRIGGER: http://schoolsucks.podomatic.com/entry/2016-02-08T10_15_17-08_00

Anti-Intellectualism is the prevailing value in today’s discourse on Truth. The question is whether it’s “nature” or “nurture.”

It’s difficult to say considering the “dumbing down” and “group think” that is indoctrinated on our students through the Public School and “Higher” Education systems.

Regardless of the cause, I’m still trying to figure out the appropriate response to these anti-intellectuals (who typically are also self-unaware, and egotistical). There literally is no “reasoning” with these people, since they lack the skills to “Reason” properly.

In the mean time, I guess I’ll continue on in the tradition of mocking the hypocrisies of the anti-intellectuals.

Cowspiracy: The Sustainability Secret Thoughts

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt3302820/

Definitely worth the watch regardless of your views on diet.

Even if you ignore the fear mongering of the Global Warming portion, there is a very compelling case in terms of efficiency to go vegan. Unfortunately, as long as crony capitalism, subsidies, federally owned lands exist, no private ownership of oceans, etc., we’re going to continue see a gross distortion of the real costs of the animal products we eat.

It’s a tough position to be in. On one hand I recognize the inherent inefficiency of the animal side of things, but the market indicators and innovations on the vegan side of things to minimize the sacrifices seem to be larger than I’m willing to take at this time.

If the Meatonomics are correct in 62% subsidies and a $4 burger should actually be $10, then that would drastically change eating habits as a whole. If animal products were priced correctly, it would create incentives for innovation in the meat substitute industry.

There will come a day where meat consumption will have no choice but to decline, but as long as Government intervention remains, it hinders this process.