I don't think you understand. I am not advocating anything but thinking. People ARE told what to think. They do not do all the research on everything. They do not "evolve" into super geniuses with endless time available to research everything. They believe what they are told by the sources they trust, and so do you. And the "democracy" I speak of is what you apparently advocate, and I know you don't mean that your old "heavyweights" disagree with you, so you must not understand that point, either.
You are viewing a single comment's thread from:
you wrote:
and
I'm sure you can see how that does not fit well with:
It is possible to be evolved such that priorities, intentions and abilities are changed appropriately to ensure that important topics are researched sufficiently.
I aim to remove all beliefs as I do not value them.
I do not advocate for democracy in the form we have known it - representational democracy is one of the biggest frauds ever created and can never help us since it, by definition, takes the power of the many, gives it to the few and gives the many little way of being heard.
You seem to not understand the difference between saying something might not produce good results, and saying that I'm advocating the opposite. You are engaging in rhetoric and not discussion. Things that you deem to be "possible" may be theoretically possible, and yet very unlikely to happen. An honest person will acknowledge this when a partisan will not. Apparently, you still do not understand that I was applying "democracy" to the information market, not to a form of government. I'll have to work on my clarity there.
I am responding to points made, using logic - that is all.
I have dealt daily for over 15 years with redirecting the use of logic among 1000s of people to help them 'see the light' regarding common errors of logic and regularly have success in that. I know that we are evolving, so I do not calculate the probability of it, I just keep doing it.
I was not aware of that, since you gave no clue to it. Democracy is typically defined as a system of government, whereas 'the information market' typically isn't.
I said this, "Most people aren't going to do their own research, and when you consider how many people believe truly ridiculous things, you begin to lose faith in democracy."
My sentence links "democracy" to people "believing truly ridiculous things," which implies, I think, that I am referring to the information market and not a form of government. I shall clarify now. I meant the democratization of information, meaning, everybody gets to say and hear everything. The move in this direction of "democracy" has produced, in my view, little improvement in the people's understanding., but has simply added more noise. Most of the new information is bullshit, and so now people believe a greater variety of bullshit than they used to, but are no closer to truth. The one real effect, probably, is to increase distrust of establishment sources, which I deem to be a positive effect, but if the establishment lies are merely replaced by other lies, then people are no better informed and become more informationally isolated. They agree on less and become less politically effective. So, this "democratization" of information produces politically dubious results. Also, the establishment troubadours sabotage the information market in their own devious ways. And they have the resources to talk over the truthers, who are unable to unite because nobody agrees on anything in a free information market. The result seems to promote disintegration of any consensus. I think I'm just babbling now. Perhaps you understand my democracy reference now.
Your one-on-one efforts with logic may be successful. I can't judge that. But, one-on-one makes very slow progress in a sea of disintegrating consensus. Not saying you should stop. I'm not advocating anything but understanding.
Thanks for clarifying. In my experience, the cause of the problems is not that information is freely available, but that there is denial involved in the minds and intentions of the people. Denial has us thinking something is true when it is not and allow us to be deceived. By ending denial, we solve these problems and it can be done. This process requires us to end our own denials and then we can help others to do the same. Closing down information and judging that 'someone' has the capacity to direct people to the 'right' information is itself a form of denial, so while we all might think we are qualified to be that person, ultimately it doesn't help.
Denial may be the problem, but how does the truth win? Does a free information market empower the truth? Are people looking to "buy" truth in this market, or are they looking for something else? A free market also empowers lies. Maybe people want lies. Maybe they prefer lies. O, well. The driver really did shoot JFK, if you care to know.
By remaining open, open to the possibility that any idea is the 'right' one and even when we are sure we are right, we still consider all the alternatives. Judgements are the cause of most denials. Judgements say 'something is such and such' - they keep reality frozen and don't allow for change, they are outside of time.
By releasing judgements, we open space for change and alignment with actual truth.
Non suppression of information empowers the truth, so if your definition of a 'free information market' includes non suppression of truth, then it might help.
A free market does not specifically empower the truth or lies, it simply allows 'buyers' to choose from a broader range of resources. What is truth might not be apparent until we have 'bought into' lies for a while. If we don't even know that certain ideas exist because they are suppressed, then how can we have the experience of the error from which to learn from and decide?
As soon as 'someone' controls information and denies it to others, we have imbalance and error is guaranteed.
Maybe some do, but that does not mean that control is part of the answer.
E. Howard Hunt is a CIA agent who admitted to being part of the large hit team prior to his death:
https://steemit.com/politics/@ura-soul/the-whistleblowers-series-30-2-us-mil-cia-agents-admit-to-participation-in-and-knowedge-of-the-gov-assassination-of-jfk