Yes yes yes the story shapes reality and in turn reality shapes the story so...
My writing on my blog has been about the need to let go of the tired old war narrative and develop a new story that honours respects and serves all beings on this beautiful planet home. I have lived enough of a life to know the grace and power we have as humans to live well together and frankly all that reset stuff they are spouting sounds ridiculous and immature . My story has platypus in a singing river, it has children's joy radiating from the branches of a peach tree, it has communion with trees wallabies and stars...
Coming up with an appealing and truthful story isn’t too hard.
The world is a place of abundance, beauty and possibility. One can go it alone or cooperate and you need not much more than drive, a positive disposition & self belief.
The world is not over populated.
We’re not running out of energy or other resources.
The global climate boiling change nonsense is a hobgoblin.
One of the world's leading scientists likes my critique of science! Wow!
Thank you so much, Mike! This really means a lot coming from you.
My critique of science is informed by an understanding that science is fundamentally about :
1) Measurement
2) Disproving false beliefs
ERGO,
1. That means that science cannot speak meaningfully about that which cannot be measured..
2. The scientific method cannot tell us what is true, only what is not true.
This presents certain problems, as no one can yet figured out out how to measure a thought, and because something being unfalsifiable does not necessarily mean that it is true.
If I say that leprechauns exist, but can't prove it, does that mean that leprechauns don't exist? No.
At the end of the day, beliefs are cognitive tools for interpreting and navigating reality. This is one of the things that people need to realize - that beliefs are aspects of an individual fiction created by the nervous system of biological organisms.
If it is true that men are their actions, that fiction is you.
A holistic approach would question beliefs based on whether or not they serve the best interest of that organism or not.
Statements about reality can be judged according to a TRUE/FALSE dichotomy, and for investigating such statements, science is an appropriate tool.
Statements can equally be judged according to a RIGHT/WRONG dichotomy, which is appropriate when it comes to questions of justice, morality, ethics, etc.
Morality is based upon subjective value judgements about what is and what isn't desirable and advantageous. Science is fundamentally amoral.
Quite possibly, a more useful dichotomy that TRUE/FALSE or RIGHT/WRONG is that of HELPFUL/HARMFUL, which is something I'll probably expand on at some point.
Robert Anton Wilson liked to ask: Do you have beliefs, or do beliefs have you?
If you are not consciously creating your belief system, your belief system is creating you.
I also like to say that if you aren't creating culture, culture is creating you.
Science does not concern itself with the question of: WHAT DO I WANT TO BELIEVE? It should. Culture is an amalgam of fictions.
Science should be considered a branch of philosophy. It is well- suited for some purposes and completely useless for others.
Science can NEVER become an ideology without betraying itself in the process. Science is incompatible with dogma (absolute beliefs about reality), but is compatible with catma (relative meta-beliefs about reality).
These ideas were informed by a Quaker peace activist named Eric Schiller, a family friend. This interview is well worth watching, but only has 26 views so far!
Anyway, I'd love to discuss these ideas with you at some point... Would you be willing to do an interview about how science relates to philosophy at some point?
Thanks for everything you do.
Love & Solidarity,
crow
p.s. By the way, did Margaret Anna Alice ever tell you that I named a character in my TALE OF THE CORONA-DEMONS after you?
This article also resonates with me. In this, my 80th year, I've finally identified and published hard evidence showing the fraudulent accounting which enables banks to "lend credit", something even the Bank of England has said can't be done. [McLeay, M., Radia, A., & Thomas, R., “Money in the modern economy”; Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2014, Volume 54 No. 1. @p.16]
Performing this "impossible act" requires more than fraudulent accounting though; it also requires the deceptive skills of a magician, which skills banks have perfected over centuries. But once you see HOW the trick is being performed, you cannot UNSEE it and their magic no longer deceives.
That is the purpose of my very tiny Substack [https://patcusack.substack.com/]; to expose the evidence of HOW the trick works. It's encapsulated in just 5 articles.
The surprising thing is that this centuries-old fraudulent bank-magic doesn't involve incorrect use of NUMBERS in their accounting; their NUMERICAL accounting is perfectly correct. Their magic is worked entirely with WORDS; it's all in the misuse of ordinary accounting WORDS to describe what they "want us to believe" the numbers are telling us. They "control the narrative" about their accounting NUMBERS, and we fall for it. It's psychopathically brilliant.
Yes yes yes the story shapes reality and in turn reality shapes the story so...
My writing on my blog has been about the need to let go of the tired old war narrative and develop a new story that honours respects and serves all beings on this beautiful planet home. I have lived enough of a life to know the grace and power we have as humans to live well together and frankly all that reset stuff they are spouting sounds ridiculous and immature . My story has platypus in a singing river, it has children's joy radiating from the branches of a peach tree, it has communion with trees wallabies and stars...
You get my drift...
Cool! Any dingos?
Years ago we used to hear them howl in the hills near us but sadly they were taken out by the small minded guns.
I really like this thesis.
Coming up with an appealing and truthful story isn’t too hard.
The world is a place of abundance, beauty and possibility. One can go it alone or cooperate and you need not much more than drive, a positive disposition & self belief.
The world is not over populated.
We’re not running out of energy or other resources.
The global climate boiling change nonsense is a hobgoblin.
Communicating this is a major problem.
One of the world's leading scientists likes my critique of science! Wow!
Thank you so much, Mike! This really means a lot coming from you.
My critique of science is informed by an understanding that science is fundamentally about :
1) Measurement
2) Disproving false beliefs
ERGO,
1. That means that science cannot speak meaningfully about that which cannot be measured..
2. The scientific method cannot tell us what is true, only what is not true.
This presents certain problems, as no one can yet figured out out how to measure a thought, and because something being unfalsifiable does not necessarily mean that it is true.
If I say that leprechauns exist, but can't prove it, does that mean that leprechauns don't exist? No.
At the end of the day, beliefs are cognitive tools for interpreting and navigating reality. This is one of the things that people need to realize - that beliefs are aspects of an individual fiction created by the nervous system of biological organisms.
If it is true that men are their actions, that fiction is you.
A holistic approach would question beliefs based on whether or not they serve the best interest of that organism or not.
Statements about reality can be judged according to a TRUE/FALSE dichotomy, and for investigating such statements, science is an appropriate tool.
Statements can equally be judged according to a RIGHT/WRONG dichotomy, which is appropriate when it comes to questions of justice, morality, ethics, etc.
Morality is based upon subjective value judgements about what is and what isn't desirable and advantageous. Science is fundamentally amoral.
Quite possibly, a more useful dichotomy that TRUE/FALSE or RIGHT/WRONG is that of HELPFUL/HARMFUL, which is something I'll probably expand on at some point.
Robert Anton Wilson liked to ask: Do you have beliefs, or do beliefs have you?
If you are not consciously creating your belief system, your belief system is creating you.
I also like to say that if you aren't creating culture, culture is creating you.
Science does not concern itself with the question of: WHAT DO I WANT TO BELIEVE? It should. Culture is an amalgam of fictions.
Science should be considered a branch of philosophy. It is well- suited for some purposes and completely useless for others.
Science can NEVER become an ideology without betraying itself in the process. Science is incompatible with dogma (absolute beliefs about reality), but is compatible with catma (relative meta-beliefs about reality).
These ideas were informed by a Quaker peace activist named Eric Schiller, a family friend. This interview is well worth watching, but only has 26 views so far!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCIqqhHWUdg
Anyway, I'd love to discuss these ideas with you at some point... Would you be willing to do an interview about how science relates to philosophy at some point?
Thanks for everything you do.
Love & Solidarity,
crow
p.s. By the way, did Margaret Anna Alice ever tell you that I named a character in my TALE OF THE CORONA-DEMONS after you?
This article also resonates with me. In this, my 80th year, I've finally identified and published hard evidence showing the fraudulent accounting which enables banks to "lend credit", something even the Bank of England has said can't be done. [McLeay, M., Radia, A., & Thomas, R., “Money in the modern economy”; Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2014, Volume 54 No. 1. @p.16]
Performing this "impossible act" requires more than fraudulent accounting though; it also requires the deceptive skills of a magician, which skills banks have perfected over centuries. But once you see HOW the trick is being performed, you cannot UNSEE it and their magic no longer deceives.
That is the purpose of my very tiny Substack [https://patcusack.substack.com/]; to expose the evidence of HOW the trick works. It's encapsulated in just 5 articles.
The surprising thing is that this centuries-old fraudulent bank-magic doesn't involve incorrect use of NUMBERS in their accounting; their NUMERICAL accounting is perfectly correct. Their magic is worked entirely with WORDS; it's all in the misuse of ordinary accounting WORDS to describe what they "want us to believe" the numbers are telling us. They "control the narrative" about their accounting NUMBERS, and we fall for it. It's psychopathically brilliant.