Messages

Allegedly, she is smarter in person than she appears on the news.  That is what I have heard from people, at least, including those who don't politically agree with her.

I would hope so, anyway.  Someone apparently that dumb shouldn't be able to rise that high without major backing.

Isn't that to be expected? In the same way Obama appealed to those who primarily wanted a President who could think, Palin appeals to people who primarily want to feel good about themselves for aesthetics and for not thinking too much. It doesn't require major backing. And it doesn't require that Palin is actually smart enough to front an intentional split personality. If you accept the premise, then emergence will do the leg-work of finding someone who completes the picture.

I predict that Google's antics with Android and Chrome will further confuse any beginning programmers who are trying to determine what an operating system is, and yet will not affect Microsoft in any way.

I predict Operating Systems as we know them, as a way to store and access files, is a dead concept - as all anyone cares about is the data inside the files, not the containers themselves. Google Wave + Gears will blur the line between off/online further, and when they finally get their AI project working we'll all be seemlessly assimilated.

Also, get off the pot. It makes you foggy headed, screws with your circuitry so you can't think straight. Its no different than being tired or hungry or drunk. Maybe it helps make weird connections, but to /understand/ those connections you need to be sober and physically healthy.

I think of it in terms of periods of theory and practice - spending too much time on either has its own rewards, but neither in isolation seems to bring tangible progress. For a long time though, it was the only way I could taste Leary's sixth circuit.

Try one month on, one month off. If you see no improvement, increase the period size.

[what makes it pathological is not the fact that is it true or not true, but why you invest so much in it—what needs does it fulfill?]

...

For me, ideology is defined only by how the coordinates of your meaningful experience of the world, and your place within society, relate to the basic tensions and antagonisms of social orders. Which is why for me no attitude is a priori ideological. You can be an extreme materialist, thinking that economic development ultimately determines everything; then you are truly ideological. You can be a fanatical millennialist religious mystic, and you are, in a certain way, not outside of ideology. Your position can be that of perfectly describing the data and nonetheless your point is ideological.

For example, I would like to use the wonderful model of Lacan. Let's say that you are married and you are pathologically jealous, thinking that your wife is sleeping around with other men. And let's say that you are totally right, she is cheating. Lacan says that your jealousy is still pathological. Even if everything is true it is pathological, because what makes it pathological is not the fact that is it true or not true, but why you invest so much in it—what needs does it fulfill? It's the same with the Jews and the Nazis. It is not a question that they attributed false properties to the Jews; the point is why did the Nazis need the figure of the Jew as part of their ideological project?

I need further clarification please.

The illusion of "I" seems to take on, at least at some level, the property of self-destructive behaviour patterns which do not directly benefit the individual - actions which make no sense at a surface level reading of evolutionary forces.

It being easier to move forwards than sideways, we have a tendency to assume that we do what we do because on some level, it "is" in our best interests. If our species is very lucky, we will never run out of fresh examples of this fallacy.

The price of liberty (seems to be) eternal vigilance, etc.

I started writing an essay but, mercifully, I think a summary might work better.

Apart from fun/new experiences, is there any point to mindfucking oneself once you've bootstrapped yourself to a certain level of awareness?

Assignment #1: write an essay on the point of a mindfuck.

I see two broad categories of mindfuck - one which works with large memesets/tropes and seems more of a scattershot approach, like leaving tracts around a city - I see its impact as either accumulative or direct (lightning-bolt inspiration), but either way it increases receptivity if done in a way which doesn't actively make people turn off. The chick-tracts seem to have this memetic fault, although in that case it might just be built into the business model.

The second category of mindfuck involves the internal thought processes/memes, which tend to be significantly more nimble and dynamic. Especially when they camouflage themselves - the evolution aspect gives a strong expectation that your bad habits will find other ways to express themselves, rather like a game of hungry hungry hippos. So meta-programming requires an individual to become aware of their own thought processes/triggers and debug them, sometimes with the luxury of foresight, but often with the associated complexities of doing this in real time.

The social mindfuck does not seem strictly required to push an individual into self-mindfucking/meta-programming, but it probably helps. This sub-culture for instance, seems geared towards that, and does appear more effective at it than mainstream culture - which reflects the respective motivations.

You could try to scribble a third mindfuck category out - that of the group-mind as a tangible form of consciousness. I can't think of any examples of mind-fucks at that level - societies tend to happily march themselves into disaster without a second thought - but perhaps it can be found in individuals escaping the sinking ship of any ideology?

So it seems cleaner to think of it in various recursions as societies and individuals influence each other with increasing levels of sophistication. If so, the point of any mindfuck would be to increase intelligence - we are the universe exploring itself, etc.

This may be kicked in the shins with "No - a mindfuck is just for fun". This construct doesn't disagree with that, but unfortunately can't do so without appearing smug.

By which I mean - if there are literally endless ways to mindfuck yourself, and countless reality tunnels to explore - then a totally random exploration of them will be interesting but will stand a terrible chance of being 'big I' illuminating in any way.

Assignment #2: rewrite assignment #1 to answer this question.

It still seems valid to me.

I.e. Is it possible to use the scientific method to map out the problem space towards the end of recognising the "ultimate mindfuck" (of the current selection) which leads to the most robust reality tunnel currently known? Is there any evidence that the appearance of multiple "truths" is not itself an illusion?

Assignment #3: do assignments #1 and #2 if you still think this paragraph makes sense.

I'm failing these assignments, since I did and I do. The existence of multiple realities does not grant them equality.

Once upon a time, you found and to your credit exposed corruption and conspiracy among those of whom we expected better.

I don't understand what you're talking about, this sentence in particular. I have no idea who "arifelis" or "daraku" or "dead kennedy" are - I didn't pay the accusations that I am a sock-puppet much heed as it seemed like random trolling - despite the common wisdom, I'm not interested in generating noise for the sake of it. But I suspect that you're referencing events that happened with them?

I mean, yes - I've responded in kind to the various tom-foolery thrown my way on _this_ thread - and mimicked the condescension I received - I thought that was part of the vibe here - should newbies not try to give as good as they get just because they are newbies? And yes, I mangled an introduction. But I have been genuine on all the other threads I've participated in since I joined - my contributions may not be great or mind-blowing, but they have been a genuine attempt to explore common goals and interest.

Now - if none of that matters, and if stripped of any association with these people whom I don't know - it remains quite simple to prove I'm not a sock-puppet - the judgement is still the same, then I'll abide by it, and wish you every luck with your endeavours.

EDIT: vvv - I guess I didn't make it clear: I am shutting up - this is the last you'll hear from me if the fact I am not a sock-puppet makes no difference

my prediction

fictionprick tries to find a way to claim victory by social experiment

There is no victory until we all stop thinking in those primitive terms.

However, it's already been claimed in that boring ass-thread that I tried to claim a "social experiment" victory, so you fail at calling it. Unless you're using a superior form of time, that is. Not that I blame you for not reading through all that circle-jerk wank.

We've only been doing this for a week, dude.  We don't know shit.

If you can't come up with something interesting/original, then I'm not going to play.

Shit, you're fast.

We've only been doing this for a week, dude.  We don't know shit.

If you can't come up with something interesting/original, then I'm not going to play.

No, dude, I've laid myself completely bare before you here. How can I say more plainly that we're at a rhetorical stalemate? We can continue this circle-jerk if you like, or we can explore common goals.

Your call.

I'm down with "keep laughing as you try to spin 'posting an email forward' as a 'mindfuck'".

If you believe that then you're not paying any attention, you're just trolling. I had expected more, in which case the mindfuck award goes to you, and the joke remains on me.

You're not going to hurt my feelings you know. Yes that is a challenge. If you take me up on it then you've just fallen victim to an obvious cards-on-the-table here-it-is counter-troll. Seriously, I'm not worth your time.

You mean I'd do just what you expected me to do?   

No, dude, I've laid myself completely bare before you here. How can I say more plainly that we're at a rhetorical stalemate? We can continue this circle-jerk if you like, or we can explore common goals.

Your call.

Who called it?
Rog?
I think you're right dude.
Sounds like Daruko.

So you're saying that there's nothing I can say or do which would prove to you otherwise, and you're _not_ falling victim to your own memes?

I hold none of those assumptions.

     a few mislaid assumptions:

-we're trying to turn you on for "the cause"

It's apparent that I'm thought to be some secret agent "Daruku"  - that would make me a lost-cause. But I have seen mention of the general principle of turning people on to a particular cause, I don't think I'm mistaken about that. The latter is the only cause I referenced.

-several year old e-mail forwards are great topics to discuss

Again, no. I mean, the fact that it has survived in the meme-pool with several mutations for several years, does imply that it has some qualities which gave it that memetic fitness. If the study of such is pre-school level shit around here then I'm quite plainly hopelessly behind all of you.

-if we don't agree with the previous point, it's because of some poison in our group dynamic

Until such time that I discover evidence to the contrary, or the example in question is patiently explained to me.. I am helpless to believe otherwise.

Since we're obviously just wasting each others time at this point, can I suggest that it might be easier to just give me the benefit of the doubt as I'm asking for, and let me prove myself (if such is required/cared about/infinite disclaimers) in other, more productive threads?

but otherwise you were probably asking a genuine question. That email is as old as the hills at this stage and its not that interesting an effect. What you said about belief being the key to the ability to do it is a pretty straightforward concept. Look around and you will see some good stuff on mindfucking yourself.

I know it's old - I gave up tracing it to 2005. The fact that it's a mindfuck which can be replicated in a few minutes, and presented to people who otherwise had no previous interest in mindfucks, or even the idea that they can switch their belief systems at will, does still make it interesting to me.. but I'll have to do more experimentation to see if giving permission to complete the exercise correctly neutralises the seeming physiological effect as reliably as it did with myself. I think it'd be neat to know of a simple quick mindfuck which works reliably on the "average person".

If that's your idea of a mindfuck, you should probably go join the Scientologists.  They're more your speed.

Well let me ask you a serious question for a moment - if you're trying to turn someone on for the cause, do you send them puppet-like through a series of pre-crafted mindfucks intended to land them at a predetermined perspective, or do you give them all of the tools as quickly as possible and assume that, the medium being the message, they'll come to similar conclusions as you already have?

This entire thread I've been under the assumption that, if anything, the interest to Discordians might be to turn it into one of many potential preliminary tools useful in the latter category above. So your assumption that I come here proclaiming that I have something/anything of vast importance to impart, or that I must think myself incredibly superior, is by definition false.

I mean yes, saying flatly to your face that you're wrong does initially seem to contradict what I write. But the difference is over something so incredibly tiny and trivial that it would be impossible for me to extract much meaning at all from it, if indeed I turned out to be correct.

an old nerve, the context behind this is for years now we have gotten a lot of people who act like complete know-it-alls coming in here who make horrible assumptions and every single one thinks its the first time we have ever been graced with their like.

I'm curious how much of this might be due to the Pygmalion effect - if newcomers who make a few mistakes are seen only in terms of reflections of what has come before, then can the newcomer be held completely responsible for the chaos which ensues?