GuyFox
5th April 2014, 23:43
Impossible Dreams are often backed by "Negative (flawed) Discernment"
Why are some New Agers attracted to ideas and causes which are clearly impossible?
Maybe some have a sort-of "Man of La Mancha" (MOLM) complex, where they want to be seen as backing worthy causes, and the more romantic, the more dreamy and impossible they are, the more the MOLM can prove their idealistic credentials by backing them.
This Video makes the point pretty well - a comment I made about RVD helped to trigger the creation of this short 5-minute video:
"The Real Man of La Mancha" - who follows an Impossible Dream of Free Money:
= 0jY1G8H87mI =
The point made by a PREVIOUS VIDEO,
/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emHsHtqjTek /
...was that SwissIndo's claim of controlling a huge fund of One Thousand thirty Quadrillion Dollars, over $1 -followed by 18 zeros, is clearly impossible - because there is simply no way that such a large sum could be generated by the world's economy even over thousands of years, nor could it be stored within the banking system. The amount is several orders of magnitude too large to be real.
What is the RESPONSE of the Man-Of-La-Mancha to very solid evidence?
The usual "classic" MOLM pattern was followed here:
===
+ The merits and exact detail of the evidence is ignored
+ The "critical" person's comment is deleted, buried, or hidden, if possible
+ People are pointed so some very flimsy bit of evidence. (In this case it was to something called: The History of Banking, an Asian Perspective: www.fourwinds10.net/resources/uploads/pdf/the_brief.pdf ) It is pointed to, without any explanation whatsoever of why that alternative evidence might be stronger, or an actual refutation of the original "critical" evidence.
TRUTH Is not mutable, and simply a "matter of opinion" in a case like this. The new age person or website that behaves this way, is pushing away an inconvenient argument, and a truth seeking debater, in exactly the same way that the MSM ignores and pushes aside evidence or truths that it finds inconvenient.
MOLM's are not "serving humanity", or becoming more "noble" by pushing aside solid facts.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I can still remember the old days, where people did not simply rubbbish, or ignore the evidence presented by someone they disagree with. They would analyze it, and try to come up with better evidence for their own point of view. If they were unable to do so, they might change their opinion - perhaps not by 180 degrees, but by enough to take onboard the new solid evidence they had been presented.
Have many of us lost our minds, our ability to debate, are now incapable of processing contradictory evidence in a genuine search for truth ?
Am I wrong to express a desire to bring people back to the old ways of honest debate? Or have we been totally overwhelmed and beaten by emotional "right brainers", who give no attention to logic, and instead ask - "Does this resonate with me?*" - and rely merely on their (flawed) inner discernment?
===
*In this case: the "resonance" question is probably just: Does this make me feel good.
Why are some New Agers attracted to ideas and causes which are clearly impossible?
Maybe some have a sort-of "Man of La Mancha" (MOLM) complex, where they want to be seen as backing worthy causes, and the more romantic, the more dreamy and impossible they are, the more the MOLM can prove their idealistic credentials by backing them.
This Video makes the point pretty well - a comment I made about RVD helped to trigger the creation of this short 5-minute video:
"The Real Man of La Mancha" - who follows an Impossible Dream of Free Money:
= 0jY1G8H87mI =
The point made by a PREVIOUS VIDEO,
/ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=emHsHtqjTek /
...was that SwissIndo's claim of controlling a huge fund of One Thousand thirty Quadrillion Dollars, over $1 -followed by 18 zeros, is clearly impossible - because there is simply no way that such a large sum could be generated by the world's economy even over thousands of years, nor could it be stored within the banking system. The amount is several orders of magnitude too large to be real.
What is the RESPONSE of the Man-Of-La-Mancha to very solid evidence?
The usual "classic" MOLM pattern was followed here:
===
+ The merits and exact detail of the evidence is ignored
+ The "critical" person's comment is deleted, buried, or hidden, if possible
+ People are pointed so some very flimsy bit of evidence. (In this case it was to something called: The History of Banking, an Asian Perspective: www.fourwinds10.net/resources/uploads/pdf/the_brief.pdf ) It is pointed to, without any explanation whatsoever of why that alternative evidence might be stronger, or an actual refutation of the original "critical" evidence.
TRUTH Is not mutable, and simply a "matter of opinion" in a case like this. The new age person or website that behaves this way, is pushing away an inconvenient argument, and a truth seeking debater, in exactly the same way that the MSM ignores and pushes aside evidence or truths that it finds inconvenient.
MOLM's are not "serving humanity", or becoming more "noble" by pushing aside solid facts.
Maybe I am old fashioned, but I can still remember the old days, where people did not simply rubbbish, or ignore the evidence presented by someone they disagree with. They would analyze it, and try to come up with better evidence for their own point of view. If they were unable to do so, they might change their opinion - perhaps not by 180 degrees, but by enough to take onboard the new solid evidence they had been presented.
Have many of us lost our minds, our ability to debate, are now incapable of processing contradictory evidence in a genuine search for truth ?
Am I wrong to express a desire to bring people back to the old ways of honest debate? Or have we been totally overwhelmed and beaten by emotional "right brainers", who give no attention to logic, and instead ask - "Does this resonate with me?*" - and rely merely on their (flawed) inner discernment?
===
*In this case: the "resonance" question is probably just: Does this make me feel good.