Friday, September 12, 2014

the main ingredient that goes into making these humans the way they are....,

newmodel |  Suggestion must be studied separately from hypnotism.

Hypnotism and suggestion are constantly confused; the place therefore which they occupy in life is quite undetermined.

In reality, suggestion is the fundamental fact. Hypnotism might not exist in our life, nothing would be altered by this, but suggestion is one of the chief factors both in individual and in social life. If there were no suggestion, men's lives would have an entirely different form, thousands of the phenomena of the life surrounding us would be quite impossible.

Suggestion can be conscious and unconscious, intentional and unintentional. The sphere of conscious and intentional suggestion is extremely small in comparison with the sphere of unconscious and unintentional suggestion.

Man's suggestibility, i.e. his capacity to submit to surrounding suggestions, can be different. A man can be entirely dependent on suggestions, have nothing in himself but the results of suggestions and submit to all sufficiently strong suggestions, however contradictory they may be; or he can show some resistance to suggestions, at least yield to suggestions only of certain definite kinds and repel others. But resistance to suggestion even of such a kind is a very rare phenomenon. Ordinarily a man is wholly dependent on suggestions; and his whole inner make-up (and also his outer make-up) is entirely created and conditioned by prevailing suggestions.

From earliest childhood, from the moment of first conscious reception of external impressions, a man falls under the action of suggestions, intentional and unintentional. In this case certain feelings, rules, principles and habits are suggested to him intentionally; and the ways of acting, thinking and feeling against these rules, principles and habits are suggested unintentionally.

This latter suggestion acts owing to the tendency to imitation which everyone possesses. People say one thing and do another. A child listens to one thing and imitates another.

The capacity for imitation in children and also in grown-up people greatly increases their suggestibility.

The dual character of suggestions gradually develops duality in man himself. From very early years he learns to remember that he must show the feelings and thoughts demanded of him at the given moment and never show what he really thinks and feels. This habit becomes his second nature. As time passes, he begins, also through imitation, to trust alike the two opposite sides in himself which have developed under the influence of opposite suggestions. But their contradictions do not trouble him, first because he can never see them together, and second because the capacity not to be troubled by these contradictions is suggested to him because nobody ever is troubled.

Home-education, the family, elder brothers and sisters, parents, relatives, servants, friends, school, games, reading, the theatre, newspapers, conversations, further education, work, women (or men), fashion, art, music, the cinema, sport, the jargon accepted in his circle, the accepted wit, obligatory amusements, obligatory tastes and obligatory taboos—all these and many other things are the source of new and ever new suggestions. All these suggestions are invariably dual, i.e. they create simultaneously what must be shown and what must be hidden.

It is impossible even to imagine a man free from suggestions, who really thinks, feels and acts as he himself can think, feel and act. In his beliefs, in his views, in his convictions, in his ideas, in his feelings, in his tastes, in what he likes, in what he dislikes, in every movement and in every thought, a man is bound by a thousand suggestions, to which he submits, even without noticing them, suggesting to himself that it is he himself who thinks in this way and feels in this way.

This submission to external influences so far permeates the whole life of a man, and his suggestibility is so great, that his ordinary, normal state can be called semi-hypnotic.

And we know very well that at certain moments and in certain situations a man's suggestibility can increase still more and he can reach complete loss of any independent decision or choice whatever. This is particularly clearly seen in the psychology of a crowd, in mass movements of various kinds, in religious, revolutionary, patriotic or panic moods, when the seeming independence of the individual man completely disappears.

All this taken together constitutes one side of the " life of suggestion " in a man. The other side lies in himself and consists, first, in the submission of his so-called " conscious ", i.e. intellectual-emotional functions to influences and suggestions coming from the so-called " unconscious " (i.e. unperceived by the mind) voices of the body, the countless obscure consciousnesses of the inner organs and inner lives; and second, in the submission of all these inner lives to the completely unconscious and unintentional suggestions of the reason and the emotions.

The first, i.e. the submission of the intellectual-emotional functions to the instinctive, has been more elaborated in psychological literature, though the greater part of what is written on these subjects must be taken very cautiously. The second, i.e. the submission of the inner functions to the unconscious influences of the nerve/brain apparatus, has been very little studied. Meanwhile, this last side offers enormous interest from the point of view of the understanding of suggestion and suggestibility in general.


woodensplinter said...

Nicely done. From the point of view of this work, there is certainly something to be said for being "in this world, but not of this world" as a goad to intentional suffering and a vaccination against suggestibility.

Naive Tom said...

This is all very noble, but if you've tried being a 7th grader who didn't like popular music and was dumb enough to say so, you'll recall it's kinda isolating.

CNu said...

Ah yes, having lived a half-century as a black man in American - you have my sympathies...,

ken said...

I think I stated it correctly..Pilate was the good guy in that question, referring back to are you asking for truth as a high priest or pilate? And yes Jesus himself made a distinction between pilate and the chief priest in John 19:

10 Then Pilate said to Him, “Are You not speaking to me? Do You not know that I have power to crucify You, and power to release You?”
11 Jesus answered, “You could have no power at all against Me unless it had been given you from above. Therefore the one who delivered Me to you has the greater sin.”
12 From then on Pilate sought to release Him, but the Jews cried out, saying, “If you let this Man go, you are not Caesar’s friend. Whoever makes himself a king speaks against Caesar.

Now as for your torture ideas, you are pinning something on me well beyond what I stated in the thought experiment. As for the link to where CNU lied, I never stated that. I am not ready to call CN's embellishments or distortions of someone else's opinion position an outright lie. And I believe I pointed out where I thought the distortion was in this thread to you.

Naive Tom said...

duh, sry, good point.

Naive Tom said...

lol, I already called you on how "lesser sin" than one of those high priests did not make Pilate a good guy. Do you think repeating the same argument with moar quotations will make me forget that?

I would love to hear exactly what I am "pinning on you" about your stated support for government torture of suspects. I would love to hear what CNu "distorted" that you said in this thread. Unfortunately you refuse to get specific. Given your history of lying about what others post here in black and white, and your repeated failure to give a link to support your remarks in this thread, I feel comfortable assuming that this is just smoke.

CNu said...

Gurdjieff's New York group organized by A.R. Orage made work on that line a particular point of emphasis for precisely this reason. Makes it a no-brainer to utilize an extreme outlier iconoclast exemplar such as Sun Ra to illustrate the point Gurdjieff seems hell bent on disturbing our equilibrium, for there is
hardly a “quiet” moment in the book that is not disturbed by one of
Gurdjieff’s classic “Otherwises.” This, as he explains in the
introduction, is based on an injunction from his grandmother which
states, “In life never do as others do…Either do nothing—just go to
school—or do something nobody else does.”

CNu said...

rotflmbao...., [4] Some readers may recognize Ken here. As for the link to where CNU lied, I never stated that.

I am not ready to call CN's embellishments or distortions of someone else's opinion position an outright lie.

I get of course that CNu's MO is personal distortions of opinions to bring out what he hopes is the truth in a person

And how your arguments when in direct opinion confrontation have a tendency to get stuck in arguing about the other's method of discussion rather than the issue itself.You just can't make this shit up. I suppose you can try and diagram it in hopes of spotting the precise mechanism by which it makes its infinitely self-calming Mobius twists...,

ken said...

No Tom, I don't think repeating the same argument will help you comprehend. But for others who have who comprehend differently, when you are given a choice between the two alternatives, like it clarified "in that question" then you compare the two choices and decide which is better, or in this case I used the wording "good guy in that question". Its simple understandable casual language really, and shouldn't need this type of explanation. You do however, its nothing bad about you that you need everything defined so precisely from people you disagree with, or that ends up being the issue, but I don't find it something I want to spend my time doing.

Your methods are not productive in finding any more perspective about how another person thinks or another view about an issue one finds himself opposing another about. So I am not going to go back to the wording of the thought game and explain it to you, nor am I going to go upthread here and show you how CN's definitions of my opinion are not true.

ken said...

What would have been wrong with including the rest of it: "its an attempt to raise the emotional level and by doing so hoping to have someone divulge a truth they wouldn't normally do in a more benign state."

You telling me you can honestly say you haven't tried to get an emotional charge out of someone in hopes they will respond back with more emotional energy and less control to expose truths they wouldn't normally disclose?

Naive Tom said...

So we're finally back around to where I started before your incredible clouds of smoke got started: Pontius Pilate was a bad guy. As everyone except you already admitted.

Throw a smoke bomb, curse the fumes, eh, Ken?

Naive Tom said...

I certainly don't claim that the diagrams are always useful. I've been startled recently to find that they're occasionally useful.

I feel like I've gotten some mileage out of the diagram in helping me to express my feeling that Ken is worse than BD. I couldn't really put that feeling into words before.

CNu said...

lol, Tom, surely it's irresponsible and unproductive of you to read the man's words and take them at face value, when everybody knows you're supposed to read between the lines, apprehend his mental gestalt, and suss out his intentions via hermeneutic exegesis...,

CNu said...

Or mebbe I'm just twittering and chortling on this end in boundless self-amusement..., perhaps you can cite an example from this very thread of the arcane manipulations you're referring to?

ken said...

I wish I could, but I can only remember something like, I artfully craft my (can't remember the artful word for comments used here) to have my subjects involuntarily divulge more truth than intended. I tried searching cnulan artfully but could find nothing, and Cnu brings up too many college entries so I am clearly not going to find it. So you can say you never said it, maybe it was just a dream I had one day. But I am pretty sure I know better.

ken said...

According to Biblical text we're all bad without the death and resurrection of Christ. In the end was Pilate a bad guy or in the midst of a conversion. Just a different perspective for you:

CNu said...

um..., does this mean you can't cite an example of the purported behavior on this specific thread? A simple "yes here it is" or "no I cannot" will suffice.

Vic78 said...

I thought what you were saying was straightforward; fuck that cop and his homeboys. The cops in the video were some shmucks. If it's legal to record the police in action, why are the cops being belligerent? If they didn't want people to see, they can take a different line of work. If the cops can't keep their cool dealing with a kid holding an IPhone, how are they going to act under real pressure?

ken said...

That depends on what you actually believe. Do you fully and honestly believe this statement you made?
"Ken is acting as a poster-child for banal evil on this thread. Not only does he unquestioningly believe himself right and correct, even after being shown to be entirely mistaken on every substantive point he's endeavored to raise, he also considers bogus authority to be beyond questioning or reproach, and, as you've pointed out, empowered to use as much violence as it deems necessary or desirable in order to squash questioning or dissent."

If you do, then I would have to say No, I cannot. If you happen to have defined the truth beyond what it truly is and you know this, then what can we call it? Obviously with my views about Ferguson or even Obama, who is in authority, I and am many others know this isn't true, and I would have figured you would have too when you made the statement. Which is why I made the assumption I did. But I can't actually be certain. Not only that, but nowhere have I ever voiced to give anybody or myself as much violence as necessary or desirable to squash questioning or dissent. It seems obvious to me this is not true, and I would think to others as I appear to enjoy dissent and arguing and the information learned from it. I would have assumed after years of arguing with me you would have deducted this.

CNu said...

Do you fully and honestly believe this statement you made?"Ken is
acting as a poster-child for banal evil on this thread. Not only does he
unquestioningly believe himself right and correct, even after being
shown to be entirely mistaken on every substantive point he's endeavored
to raise, he also considers bogus authority to be beyond questioning or
reproach, and, as you've pointed out, empowered to use as much violence
as it deems necessary or desirable in order to squash questioning or
dissent."Focus Ken. We're talking about Boston police officers giving illegitimate orders to a citizen exercising his constitutional rights and making a perfectly lawful request of the overseer, period.

It is a plain, simple, and indisputable fact that for your part, you invoked Frank Sweet (no legal expert or authority and one of the most preposterous Internet authoritarian assholes OF ALL TIME) who contended that the lawfully acting citizen is invoking legitimate violence and violent shackling by the overseer pursuant to the overseer's subjective judgement and nothing more. That was the totality of your opening argument

It's not a question of belief on my part, it was a simple statement of indisputable fact.

That said, your second paragraph is indecipherable gibberish - having no bearing that I can fathom - on the simple question I asked. With no further ado or qualification, did I artfully "press your corns" on this thread, or, did I simply and mercilessly call attention to your factually, logically, and legally incorrect assertions?

ken said...

Please Craig, If you care to notice I included the whole post of that comment, but only challenged your second part Clearly the first part is a matter of opinion. There was no reason to ask me to focus or go into the details of the frst part of your comment.

First off both of us believe we are right, and you think all my points have been sufficiently answered, I don't... but I didn't challenge that part did I? I went to only discussing the latter part of the comment where you began with "he also....". So the question only can be answered by you, my suspicion is you knew the latter part was inaccurate and was stating it for effect. Of course you are the only one who can honestly answer that. As for pushing my corns, I was just having fun with Tom pointing out how huffy he would have gotten had I done the same thing.

I have dealt with this labeling for effect from you for years, I have figured out the method long ago.

CNu said...

A. he also considers bogus authority to be beyond questioning or reproach, and, as you've pointed out, empowered to use as much violence as it seems necessary or desirable in order to squash questioning or dissent

B. both of us believe we are right

Ken has expressed full support for A. on this thread. B. Ken has asserted the correctness of his beliefs and his claims.

Ken now purports to question whether I believe that the above assertions on his part incline me to believe he's intentionally authoritarian and thus evil?

To me, the answer to this question seems conspicuously obvious to the casual observer, stated very matter of factly and without any aspirations on effect. The functional equivalent of stating that "water is wet".

BigDonOne said...

This week's Martenson summary had a good one on happiness, brain chemicals and goals ---> The last paragraph was particularly telling, "...the study of ethics has given people an alternative route to fulfillment, rather than domination, pursuing the truth through empirical evidence and then acting on the information rather than on feelings is a more constructive way on reaching one’s full potential and fulfillment,..." In other words, PRR & FTO trump PC......

CNu said...

Actually not a bad article. I'm puzzled why you felt the need to "frost" it with the inimitable "in other words" spin? Are you feeling "dominated" BD by the overwhelming propaganda might of PC?

BigDonOne said...

It is a teaching technique one learns after raising a few kids....

You see, kids will tend not to believe anything their horrible oppressive parents have to say about what is right or wrong, or any advice offered - they merely believe their parents have a hardcore agenda to make their lives miserable. The only way, as parents, to reach one's kids effectively is to show them what you want them to absorb coming from a respectable and credible source that does not know them or have any interest in whether or not they do well or are happy, and, most of all, has no connection to their parents.

The bottom line on that article was a succinct summation of what BD has been trying to teach Subrealism all these years.....Y'all are BD's misguided rebellious 'children' who don't grasp The Truth....

CNu said...

lol, okay - if you say so. BD turnt up bright and early on a saturday morning....,

Vic78 said...

Did y'all see the nonsense they're trying to pull on Adrian Peterson?

ken said...

You can't leave marks, especially if you're not living in the same house as the mother of the child.

I really never heard how much strife Adrian has gone through:
Peterson grew up in little Palestine, Texas. When he was 7, his 8-year-old brother Brian was riding his bicycle when he was killed by a drunk driver. Years later, his half-brother, Chris Paris, was shot and killed the night before Peterson worked out for scouts and coaches at the NFL combine.

His mother, Bonita Jackson, was a former Olympic sprinting hopeful and his father, Nelson Peterson, spent eight years behind bars for laundering drug money yet still managed to be a positive influence on his son's life....

Last season, not long after finding out that he had a 2-year-old son living in South Dakota, Peterson rushed to the hospital after authorities said the boy was brutally beaten by his mother's boyfriend. The boy died, and a 28-year-old man is scheduled to go on trial next month on second-degree murder charges in the case.

CNu said...

Chris Rock tried to tell cats that baby-mama drama was a one-way, high-speed ticket to bad times under the rule of law....,

Vic78 said...

I blame parents and what's passed for leadership the past few decades.

CNu said...

The overwhelming majority of overseers are irrational, wannabe patriarchs,
hell-bent on defending their egos and burdened with fears of black people,
especially black men. Overseers are little different from the most destructive and potentially violent
folks in the ‘hood, where “street smarts” say that you measure your
anger when confronted by people crazier than you, people who you know
will do whatever is necessary to make you pay for the slight against
their authority, imagined or otherwise. That fear-masked-by-anger is what they confuse with
integrity and keeping it real.

It's bad enough when hood-refuse does it, but you actually have to seek these dysgenic morons out. Overseers, on the other hand, come to you where you walk, ride, drive, live - and manifest their odious emanations under color of authority. THIS is what makes the illegitimate and and incompetent overseer far worse than the odious thug in the hood.

CNu said...

You blame parents for what?

CNu said...

I don't think it was all ever only "the grass is greener and white folks ice is colder" that motivated folks to exit the hood as soon as they could exit the hood. I don't think it was only just status-seeking. Access and exposure unavailable in the hood was a strong driver, as well as access to a social network with greatly enlarged economic opportunities.

Had black folks been doing anything with a future growth potential, it was nowhere to be found. For that, I blame leadership and the folks who accepted such mediocre leadership.

As hood sub-culture has become increasingly hypersegregated from the american cultural mainstream, it has begun to differentiate itself in ways that are unmistakeable and probably in the long-run unbridgeable. A lot of folks wanted no part of a culture that permanently alienated - and so chose not only to never emulate that - but also to disdain and eschew that - because it wasn't adding any value.

Vic78 said...

Many parents didn't school their kids like they should've. You remember CB4 where the group was fronting like they were street? A lot of kids were doing that at the time. It was dangerous to turn their noses up when their kids were being told the ignorant shit being promoted was what being Black was about.

As for the kids that figured out how to avoid those pitfalls, they did alright but there are problems. There was a social engineering program pulled on them that they had no resistance to. You noticed in the essay there was all this talk about white supremacy and no sensible idea as to what to do about it? These are people with some real credentials walking around confused and depressed. Their parents weren't altruistic so the kids are having to figure out what to do on their own.

BigDonOne said...

@Leadership --- Obama's popularity is so low the Kenyans are accusing him of being born in the United States,,,,

Vic78 said...

This is better than what you usually post. I'll be impressed when you finally take your first toke.

CNu said...

I think that calling the serious business of setting and exemplifying a cultural baseline for your kids - that is different from the cultural lowest common denominator "dangerous" - is more than a little hyperbolic. Oak Bluffs and the Inkwell never stopped being Oak Bluffs and the Inkwell at the very apogee of ratchet cultural cachet. Moreover, those Huxtables were doing their Huxtable-thing in prime-time on NBC during that era. So you know what, folks made their choices.

Poor kids whose parent wanted them to adhere to the Huxtable-ian exemplars - were indeed up against a shit-monsoon coming off of Madison Avenue that had set about the business of constructing an adolescent male pornographic model under which ugly boys acting ugly was made out to be the shit. Well, it was never the shit, and in point of fact, it was always just shitty. From Easy E to Bobby Brown, what exactly are we talking about when we're talking about what was being marketed to impressionable young minds?

Respectable negroes wanted to and never ceased trying to put on a proper "role-model" front. But when you get right down to it, the only thing that actually functions as a role model in any household I'm acquainted with, is the man of the house and how he holds down his role. What expectations does he set, what standards does he exemplify, etc..., Want to keep your daughter off the pole, be a present, attentive, and engaged father. Want to keep your son on the straight and narrow, stay on the straight and narrow and show scant little tolerance for slippage.

The only real answer to dealing with white supremacy is to engage it directly with cultures of competence. To the extent that black exemplars failed to maintain inherent cultures of competence, and to the extent that we allowed Madison Ave. to co-opt and subvert mass-market black cultural production, well, those are once again failures of leadership.

Vic78 said...

The reason I called it dangerous was that parents weren't seeing their kids get caught up until it was too late. There were a bunch of kids from Huxtable backgrounds joining gangs. A lot of them didn't believe the problem was worth addressing at the time. I guess they thought their kids knew better. I'm saying a lot of middle and upper class parents weren't attentive or engaged.

As far as Madison Ave marketing, I'll go with what was being put out in the early 90s and afterwards. The positive wasn't pushed as hard around that time.

CNu said...

Madison Ave. is where the record companies were located. This marketing cartel has been greatly diminished since that era, however, some of their "editorial" decision set a baseline cultural template which will be incredibly hard to overcome. How you sell ugly boys doing ugly things and being rewarded with pussy, to other ugly boys trying to figure out their way in the world..., like I said, folks made their choices.

Between that and prison-chic...., "prison-chic" pants all sagging and clothes all baggy... wtf?!?!?!

In parallel, you had the advent of the multi-culti cathedral, with leftist feminist lesbians in the academy dominating and driving out an authoritarian ideology all their own through the mechanism of tenure and censure, ostracism, and cultural extortion. I'm not blaming this element, editorial decisions had been taken at the highest levels of the academy which I'm sure remain an old white male bastion right up to this very minute. But the decision to put the cathedral and its anti-masculine drivel front and center has paid huge dividends toward the subversion and destruction of mainstream, heteropositive respectable negroe culture.

If the ladder of education geared toward higher-ed dumps you off at an emasculating bottom rung, then it's comparatively easy to see and understand why some young cats would prefer the "hyper-masculine" alternative of the thug life. Mainstream protestant christianity is no good anymore, dominated as it is by self-serving pimps in the pulpit - so that third path toward progress has been cut off to the intelligent and well male for some time now, as well.

Honestly Not Sure How A Turd Like This Calls Itself A Scholar.....,

chronicle  |   It is not surprising for a boss to think that employees should avoid saying things in public that might damage the organiz...