Zeitgeist
- Thread starter Bowser
- Start date
Not disparaging your original intent, whatever it was, but that phrase is a particular quibble of mine. It seems to have been generated by someone with a degree in social sciences or fine arts, rather than by someone who has to actually work..
Back to you. Let the music play.
Unfortunately, I do, yes. A paradigm shift in human events, that is, rather than a political or sociological movement in the sense that we have known such movements in the past.
This shift is inchoate, without an ideology or purpose.
I'm very much hoping to be dead before it comes into its full power. I assume most species on the planet will be joining me.
This shift is inchoate, without an ideology or purpose.
I'm very much hoping to be dead before it comes into its full power. I assume most species on the planet will be joining me.
I almost thought someone of some consequence would answer. Too bad. Sometimes I like what you say, other times I don't.
Like that.
I am actually cool with that.
The idea originated from a video I watched about scurvy aboard naval ships, how the cure had been discovered but wasn't employed because more traditional medicine practices were favored, such as bloodletting.
How is scurvy - or even medical practice - a paradigm?
Now I'm not at all sure we're talking about the same thing.
Some people are trying very hard to slow it down, but they haven't any power or money, while the extinguishers have both, and are gaining, all over the globe.
The recent US power shift is right now forging the nails for nature's coffin.
Now I'm not at all sure we're talking about the same thing.
Hoping never stopped an extinction. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/...cience-animals-species-endangered-extinction/
Some people are trying very hard to slow it down, but they haven't any power or money, while the extinguishers have both, and are gaining, all over the globe.
The recent US power shift is right now forging the nails for nature's coffin.
People had their romp with individualism and idiosyncratic uniqueness. The "always in contact with others" of smartphone and twitter addiction, and the ideological shift to groupthink and group-identity, are the necessary precursors for the "extended self". Laying the primitive groundwork till the actual, complete technological realization of hivemind is cheaply and surgically available to the masses.
Is the zeitgeist not something you can only identify well after the period in question? Is it not merely when one defines a period through its ideas and beliefs, rather than being identified at the time?
Certainly I think we are going through a change in social interaction due to technology, but we're also going through a political upheaval of sorts in the West, and I'm not sure how the two will play out and interact in the future, or which will be dominant.
But society is changing in its habits, and has been since the dawn of social media like Facebook, Twitter et al, and cloud computing, when everything becomes immediate, including opinion. Couple that with economic troubles around the same time (2008 crash) and preceding that you had 9/11 in 2001, and these are big motivators of society, all occurring in a short space of time.
Whether any paradigm shift or change in the zeitgeist is occurring nor readily than previously I do not know. It may be that we are just at the tipping point so that it appears to be quicker. It may be that society settles back to its old ways and that there is no eventual major shift. It may be that the numerous impacts to society's way of thinking have crates a perfect storm.
Time will tell, I guess.
Certainly I think we are going through a change in social interaction due to technology, but we're also going through a political upheaval of sorts in the West, and I'm not sure how the two will play out and interact in the future, or which will be dominant.
But society is changing in its habits, and has been since the dawn of social media like Facebook, Twitter et al, and cloud computing, when everything becomes immediate, including opinion. Couple that with economic troubles around the same time (2008 crash) and preceding that you had 9/11 in 2001, and these are big motivators of society, all occurring in a short space of time.
Whether any paradigm shift or change in the zeitgeist is occurring nor readily than previously I do not know. It may be that we are just at the tipping point so that it appears to be quicker. It may be that society settles back to its old ways and that there is no eventual major shift. It may be that the numerous impacts to society's way of thinking have crates a perfect storm.
Time will tell, I guess.
The shift is being driven by leftist leaning education and media. The reason is the left puts emotions ahead of thinking. When the brain creates memory, an emotional tag is added to the memory, during the writing process. This emotional tag is useful to the animal, since a similar memory will trigger the same emotion. For example, if the animals sees a strange food, and the food was good last time, they will feel a positive feeling when they see it again. They will act on the feeling and eat without having to think. There is a certain animal efficiency to this.
That being said, we can use our imagination to trigger our memory, in two ways. We can think thoughts and induce feelings, or we can induce feelings which will then induce thoughts. This is based on thought-emotional memory tagging and the ability to approach memory from either side. As an example of the former, I can calm reason a risky situation, like climbing a mountain on a stormy day, leading to the conclusion of danger, which will induce fear in me. As an example of the latter, I can induce fear with a bad day memory, before thinking about a new situation. This induced fear, in the context of the new situation, which will start trigger a line of thought, to justify my fear. Both scenarios will end with thoughts and fear feelings, but the order in which these are induced, can lead to different results.
The change in the times, all has to do with the feminization of culture. Since the 1960's or so, culture on a large scale, has tried to get men to be more in touch with their emotions and feelings. The result has been a reverse in thought processing, away from thought first and more into emotions first. For example, the emotional hysteria on the left, due to Trump's election, has led to thinking that violent demonstrations and fake news are justified, since the ends justifies the means. The end game is a calming of the strong emotions, while the means are the deceptive thoughts processing stemming from the hysteria. To the emotional thinker; emotion first, this all seems natural and therefore justified. However, it does not make sense to a thought first person, who is cannot logically reason the hysteria needed to justify becoming a savage for survival.
The left is more emotion first. It tends to reason based on the mood. This is how PC works. Certain buzz words have been conditioned to be triggers for different emotions. When the feeling is induced by the trigger word, thinking becomes secondary to the mood. Revisionist history also works using emotion first. Some wish to justify crime and hostility in inner cities, by empathizing with these emotions. The result is thought extrapolation, to an irrational connection to history.
There is a lot of deception on the internet. The main reason is again emotion is coming first, with the flow of ideas, consistent with these leading feelings. However, the thoughts that result may not appear to add up, as stand alone reason, thereby appearing deceptive or irrational. However, the train of thought does satisfy an emotional need in the author, with the ideas flowing from the fuel of the feeling.
Much of the insulting in discussion forums, often occurs due to feelings first. One may feel anger against another, for whatever trigger, so no matter what they say, even if logical, will not add up to the thoughts, that come secondarily, to that angry feeling. Insults are also used as triggers to shift a rational thought first argument to emotion first so it becomes defective. Such an angry person then wants to be told what they wish to hear. The goal is for someone else to help then change the feeling, so thoughts can improve.
I don't think this change is good or evil, but rather it defines part of our human potential. This skill could be used to explore the unconscious mind. However, it needs to be pointed out that this leads to inferior thinking patterns, that are better for entertainment than for education.
That being said, we can use our imagination to trigger our memory, in two ways. We can think thoughts and induce feelings, or we can induce feelings which will then induce thoughts. This is based on thought-emotional memory tagging and the ability to approach memory from either side. As an example of the former, I can calm reason a risky situation, like climbing a mountain on a stormy day, leading to the conclusion of danger, which will induce fear in me. As an example of the latter, I can induce fear with a bad day memory, before thinking about a new situation. This induced fear, in the context of the new situation, which will start trigger a line of thought, to justify my fear. Both scenarios will end with thoughts and fear feelings, but the order in which these are induced, can lead to different results.
The change in the times, all has to do with the feminization of culture. Since the 1960's or so, culture on a large scale, has tried to get men to be more in touch with their emotions and feelings. The result has been a reverse in thought processing, away from thought first and more into emotions first. For example, the emotional hysteria on the left, due to Trump's election, has led to thinking that violent demonstrations and fake news are justified, since the ends justifies the means. The end game is a calming of the strong emotions, while the means are the deceptive thoughts processing stemming from the hysteria. To the emotional thinker; emotion first, this all seems natural and therefore justified. However, it does not make sense to a thought first person, who is cannot logically reason the hysteria needed to justify becoming a savage for survival.
The left is more emotion first. It tends to reason based on the mood. This is how PC works. Certain buzz words have been conditioned to be triggers for different emotions. When the feeling is induced by the trigger word, thinking becomes secondary to the mood. Revisionist history also works using emotion first. Some wish to justify crime and hostility in inner cities, by empathizing with these emotions. The result is thought extrapolation, to an irrational connection to history.
There is a lot of deception on the internet. The main reason is again emotion is coming first, with the flow of ideas, consistent with these leading feelings. However, the thoughts that result may not appear to add up, as stand alone reason, thereby appearing deceptive or irrational. However, the train of thought does satisfy an emotional need in the author, with the ideas flowing from the fuel of the feeling.
Much of the insulting in discussion forums, often occurs due to feelings first. One may feel anger against another, for whatever trigger, so no matter what they say, even if logical, will not add up to the thoughts, that come secondarily, to that angry feeling. Insults are also used as triggers to shift a rational thought first argument to emotion first so it becomes defective. Such an angry person then wants to be told what they wish to hear. The goal is for someone else to help then change the feeling, so thoughts can improve.
I don't think this change is good or evil, but rather it defines part of our human potential. This skill could be used to explore the unconscious mind. However, it needs to be pointed out that this leads to inferior thinking patterns, that are better for entertainment than for education.
Last edited:
-
Yah, that mythical Left has a lot to answer for. Might have wrecked the Capitalist system ordained by God Himself, if they'd been suffered to live.
Good thing the virtuous Right had more Guns.
As in teaching evolution, reproduction and climate science, rather than creationism and Abrahamic law?
Yah, that mythical Left has a lot to answer for. Might have wrecked the Capitalist system ordained by God Himself, if they'd been suffered to live.
Good thing the virtuous Right had more Guns.
Relative to evolution, from a Creationist's POV, once animals and plants appear, by whatever means, Creationists recognize the process of change and the competition/selection among the critters. From ancients times, they bred animals and plants and saw the variations that appear. They could also see what happens when you breed a horse with a donkey or a lion with a tiger. They could see how strong empires will dominate, the weaker empires, and how they rape the women, to pass on the seeds of their higher civilization.
The main difference, is not the process of change, which is similar, but it is connected to how the change occurs. Modern evolution uses the equivalence of a god of random and chaos. This is not called a god, because he/she/it is not definitive, but likes its own random principle is and is not, depending on the flip of a coin. Creationism implies a logical consequence of events, based on an extrapolation of fundamental principles, albeit these principles are attributed to a definitive god; definitive as the principles. This is the main difference. Creation sees a logical schema while Evolution sees a random schema; based on premises used. Emotional thinking does not allow this distinction. The idea that life evolves based on an ordered principle is different from flipping coins. The former is connected to the age of reason. Random is not grounded in reason, but is more connected to emotional thinking; lure of jackpots.
A far as reproduction, this is something even a dumb animal do. Put two dogs together and they do not need special education. Special education for sex is designed with the brain dead in mind. Sex is based on an instinct, which the average person can develop by gathering data and extrapolating, even as a child. It is part of early training in critical thought, where the individual at a young age has an internal incentive to explore the world and learn how to ride the bike. Emotional thinking makes you brain dead, so even basic stuff that a bug can master, has to be taught. Then you have the blind leading the blind leading to huge social expenses and consequences.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
You mean just like every other time?
Well, here's an example. I live in a very liberal city, but there is a new attitude rising even here. I realized it while watching people on the street cheering as the police hauled away a group of protesters.
spidergoat
Valued Senior Member
Assholes aren't new.
But that's just it, the protesters have been given a pass for so long that people are tired of their antics.
here i go, another video...
Last edited: