Imminent FulfillmentImmortality,  Safety, Empowerment, Equality, KnowledgeUnity, Society

Should not intelligent, reasonable men of good will be able to agree on all things that matter?

"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil to
  one who is striking at the root."
- Henry David Thoreau
Site Sections, Subject List, Article Synopses and other features

Introduction Material
Introduction Articles
Word Definitions
Human Condition

Christianity Material
Bible/Canon Issues
Christendom Analyzed

Jesus Material
Jesus' Teachings
Aspects of Jesus
5 Gospels Canon

Philosophy Material
Academic Education
Paradigm Material
Philosophers of Note
Philosophical Issues
Philosophy Metaphysics
Psychological Issues
Religious Miscellaneous
Sociological Material
Theological Basics
Theological Issues
Theological Misc

Theological Skeptical

Cosmology, Creation,
Geophysical Material

Cosmology Material
Creation Issues
Geophysical Material

Reconstruction &
Mythology Material
Chronology Revision
Golden Age Themes
History Revision
Misc Ancient Myth Material
Modern Mythology Material
Psycho-Catastrophe Articles
Saturn-Jupiter Material
Symbol Development
Venus-Mars Material
1994 Velikovsky Symposium

Miscellaneous Material
Book Critiques Links
Misc Biology Links
Misc Issues/Conclusions
Poetry & Fun Material
PDF Download Files
Lecture & Video Links
Site Features Links
Spiritual Products online store

amat victoria curam
(Victory loves preparation)

A pertinent Discussion
Updated: 01/11/2021

The following is a somewhat relevant e-mail discussion, between intellectually astute observers, that not only touches on confusion between Orthodoxy and Heterodoxy, but also on relativism and its corruption of words and language:

Original poster:

This is very much what I believe that I see happening online.  I've yet to see it stated in fewer words ...

"Tribal moral communities, Haidt has argued, emerge organically when individuals realize their shared interests, their common views, and their overlapping values. These communities, synthesized and energized by their shared moral intuitions, will identify and elevate certain narratives, specific beliefs, and various symbols that define the social and psychological boundaries of the group. In Haidt’s language, tribal moral communities “sacralize” objects and ideas, making them taboo for members to challenge and generating a clarion call to arms if attacked. When embraced, these sacred values bind members of the group together—they offer safety in numbers, psychological and emotional security, and the reassuring knowledge that group members and their sacred values are moral and that outsiders and their values are not. But these values also blind people to their biases and to the inconsistencies in their narratives and beliefs. The benefits of belonging to a tribal moral community therefore come at the cost of intellectual independence—that is, conformity to the moral orthodoxy of the group. Most of us, most of the time, it appears, are happy to accept this trade-off."

Heterodoxy is Hard, Even at Heterodox Academy - Quillette

First responder:

[This] leftist academia psychologism said:

Tribal moral communities, Haidt has argued, emerge organically when individuals realize their shared interests, their common views, and their overlapping values.”

Here we see the postmodern mimetic inversion at work. The effort here is to do a little “meaning making” (context dropping bait and switch, redefinition) with the concept of “tribalism”. Tribalism is the concept that refers to holding those who possess the same blood/ descent and switching that with the referents of the concept “ideology”, particularly, moral ideology.  The effort is to make ones ideas that individuals "agree" on, a product of the group one rubs shoulders with...(or elbows in the case of “laborers”) and making “individualism” a matter of “creation” by arbitrary subjective construction.
    This article also repeats the popular bromide of “bias” in such a way that makes the concept meaningless.
    Likewise, it tries to replace unity of belief, or “agreement”, with “conformity"....
This drivel is the modern enshrinement of a linguistic tower of Babel.

Original poster:

I urge people to focus upon seeking to understand the psychology which inspires normal people to reject or ignore reasonable ideas in the sciences.  Do not be so quick to throw away an analysis because somebody has used an analogy.  There is no "bait and switch" in the sense that the reader is somehow being fooled.  Most of the trickery happening today sources to the science journalism.  By leaving out context which would be considered necessary in any other genre of journalism, it encourages the formation of narratives, beliefs and symbols which are then used to define taboos.  It is those taboos which obstruct reasoning towards reasonable ideas.
    If somebody has a better representation for why people reject or ignore the significance of electricity in space - the only other force which can work at the largest scales - then please state it.  The work is not done once you think that you understand it; that is simply the first step which provides an inference to track over time, through repeated interactions

My response

First responder, you’ve outdone yourself this time with such an astute analysis.. I hear what you are saying. When I read the passage above, I don’t find it helpful at all, and my blood pressure goes up. It’s enough to provoke one to un-sheath and raise the sword pen. The writer of the passage is seemingly a product of our failed, corrupt university system with its content of sophisticated ignorance and falsity, and has only learned how to sound, with quasi-psychobabble, like he knows what he is talking about.
    How could it be otherwise? We KNOW that writers like this have an underlying false paradigm in so many important areas, are devoid of sound philosophy, and don’t have a clue as to the true origins of humans, culture, civilization, evil, etc.,  or even the meaning of the symbols and the words they are using. It is like they are in some alternate universe, down the rabbit hole, where the meaning of the words has been twisted, or even turned around in the case of “orthodox” versus “heterodox”. Living in their “relativistic” world, the modern miasma, they understand neither the power in unity of belief nor its importance, and conformity is about all they can really envision or ask for on the one hand, and rail against on the other. They relate to the idea of sound philosophy about the way atheists relate to the traditional mainstream concepts of God found in a backward country church. There is no truth except what the most persuasive writer fashions it to be.
    Your last sentence is not only brilliant but eloquent, yet you left out the words “mind numbing” before “drivel”!

Original poster:

Re: "I am not imputing error so much as asking why is this simplistic FACT relevant or even worth noting?"

Because the information would seem to be actionable.  Participants may not even realize that they are emulating these patterns, or that their offhand online comments are playing an important part in this larger system that blocks innovation in the sciences.
By providing people with a mental framework for understanding the process for how reasonable ideas in the sciences can be blocked by the formation of these narratives and taboos, it's at least in theory possible to elicit the subject-object transition: What the person was formerly subject to, they can be taught to take a step back and treat as an object.
    There may be a new form of journalism available here which results in people thinking more deeply about their own personal interactions with controversial science claims.  Perhaps a "do no harm" approach can be devised and examples demonstrated for how the public might avoid participating in these "tribes" (?).
    I've already documented a couple hundred online interactions on controversial science - mostly on Twitter - in an attempt to experiment with this approach.  I am specifically trying to document reactions to Electric Universe claims online using my Controversies of Science Twitter account, with hopes that I will be able to bring it all together into an (admittedly unusual) attempt to inspire some introspection.  It will be like a book of Twitter conversations with added commentary and lots of visuals to try to keep it all interesting and thought-provoking.

Third responder:

Gotta agree on this, Original poster.  The more EU [Electric Universe paradigm] evidence we can bring to the table the better.  But seeing how the momentum of popular beliefs can discourage badly needed CONSIDERATION OF CONTRARY EVIDENCE is just as important.

My response

Third responder, nice to see you’re paying attention! I can’t really disagree with what you are saying, but I CAN frame it for perspective and relevance. See [MA] inclusions below:

Well now folks, this little conversation seems to involve no actual “conversation.”
[MA]-Yes, and this seems to be a symptom of the times.

Michael and First responder, unless I’m missing something here, you guys are confusing sociology and philosophy.  Original poster simply introduced a respectable study of how social trends emerge and take hold (a legitimate sociological study). But you guys appear to be suggesting that Original poster sided with the devil for not having paused to evaluate sociological trends on your own moral or rational ground. :)
[MA]-I’m not confusing the two, just lamenting the lack of the latter, and the lack of real substance in the former. Original poster should not take what I have said as an offense.

I’d think the sociological forces that rise and fall in the course of cultural evolution are well worth exploring.
[MA]-I question this premise, at least for me. I think that we should all have bigger fish to fry. And maybe, modern academics trying to understand sociological forces to any significant degree--without the larger context of the Saturnian scenario and the human condition infected race-wide with guilt, amnesia and denial--is an exercise of futility and self-deception.

Where is the error in noting (with Haidt) the simple FACT that different communities within a culture "will identify and elevate certain narratives, specific beliefs, and various symbols that define the social and psychological boundaries of the group”?
That is simple Sociology 101.
[MA]-OK, so what? I am not imputing error so much as asking why is this simplistic FACT relevant or even worth noting? When I am asked to read intellectual content versus entertainment, I want something more substantive and helpful than this drivel!

What I saw in Haidt’s quote provided by Original poster was simply descriptive, not prescriptive, and certainly not a call for collective uniformity. His own words explicitly warn that such a call can "blind people to their biases and to the inconsistencies in their narratives and beliefs.” That is simple Sociology 101.
[MA]-Who can argue with what you say? SO WHAT?!  What is the nugget of value in such flummery? Need I reiterate my last comment above?
    BTW. I wouldn’t even have responded except for what First responder said (it’s all his fault!) But his remarks need to be seen in the larger context of past conversations, and in the greater “truth is relative” mindset of the modern thinking, and I thus found them to be insightful and spot on.

Home   Site Sections   Article Map   Contact   Store   Contributions   Survey