anthony

'We Don't Have America Anymore'—Dr. Naomi Wolf on CCP-Style Technocratic Authoritarianism in the US LISTS.YOUMAKER.COM “It's not just the vaccine. It’s a little bit of cruelty, a little bit of inequality, a ...

Identification? Michael: Well described. Your insights into substance addiction remind me of tourists in Africa, one or two of whom get killed by lions (or a hippo) every year. What it may be, is how many citydwellers commonly see animals on TV handled by game rangers and other experts familiar with each individual animal's behavior. They seem so tame! They look so cuddly! The young, especially. So one needs to get up close to touch them. The Mama lioness sometimes objects. The caution and fear towards wild animals comes from education and learning, and others' experiences, preferably, not one's own experiences. One can hardly survive long in the wilds approaching everything in innocent ignorance, to discover by touch if they are painful or pleasurable. Once learned ~ identified ~ the appropriate emotions when encountering anything dangerous, will surface. What I'm driving at, our emotional faculty is based on pain-pleasure. But one doesn't and cannot identify anything by it. (Not tools of cognition). A particular emotional response merely gives an instant read-out from the value-standards based on one's identification - that you fed in. It seems then that if one has 'cuddled' a potentially harmful substance, and survived unscathed, and felt all the heightened senses and positive moods, and for a while experienced the pleasure without any pain - one's evaluation will respond in kind: this is "good for me". The positive emotions follow automatically. Until the time comes you realize the self-harm they cause, up close, and decide to effortfully change your behavior. A little I know about addiction, is that some remnants of "positive emotions" associated with substances may never leave one and need to be continuously over-ruled. Another necessary and conscious value-judgment to replace the first: "Not good for me". Then a new set of negative emotions about them arise. So "the automatic guardian of the organism's life" - WHEN - the system receives the correct data.

"Axiomatic" proposition? Self-evident, rather. Then - observable. Not of course, the biological system and its inner functions, and 'how' all that works, etc., which are learned knowledge - but the physical sensations of pain-pleasure, that accompany an emotion. Which one ~knows~ (self-evidently and intimately) corresponds to a specific emotion. Which one can and does put "a name" upon - a concept. Delight, anguish, remorse, exultation, guilt, fear ...You physically feel them: the gut clenches, the throat tightens, breathing increases (or stops), heart pounds, perspiration increases, muscles tense, vision sharpens - and so on. Therefore, the individual is experiencing and can simply deduce a self-evident causation. This -caused - that. Anger (e.g.) - causes "that" basket of sensations. All exclusively physiological, up to this stage. Question is: Back before the chemicals/hormones that were released to cause those bodily changes - what was *first cause*? Back one step, yes there was a provocation/experience/etc. which could be cause for one's anger. But only look at several people in the presence of the identical provocation, and you can observe: amusement, or bored indifference, or irritation, or sadness - or anger or outrage. A good experiment is watching faces in an audience. Meaning, there's no necessary commonality among people in emotional responses - the facility is automated for all humans but - individually varied in kind, according to - what? Here is the evidence, I think, of everyone -previously - having made - or subconsciously accepted (often) - "value-judgments" distinctly individuated. For each, many times very different. Self-made, indeed. Who is "right"? The emotion plainly is faithfully accurate to one's previous value-standards, set and self-programmed: Obviously, not "an emotion" nor the brain/physiological processes which precede it to make it ostensibly "felt" in a physical reaction, have the power to identify/assess anything on their own. If it is (as justified) the consequence of one's 'identification of something' -and- 'good for me, bad for me' judgment - the more objectively realistic is the identification and evaluation, the more "appropriate" to stimuli and situations will be the type of emotion.

Michael, the very point of this is that each and all emotions have a single, biological base - in one's senses: "the pleasure-pain mechanism". Clearly I don't differentiate lower-level from higher level, causes of emotions. Moral, or not moral. (While there are primary emotions, and degrees of intensity) Same for all: their (evolved) purpose for mankind is the survival and well-being of the individual organism and consciousness (my description, btw). What may confuse, is that very often one doesn't make a conscious "value-judgment", it would often be subconscious, from and by way of, the many actions, interest, time, care and attention, dedicated to a thing, person, event, etc. - which associate subconsciously with "good for me". A responding emotion when that 'thing' is threatened, harmed or lost - equally as automatic as the conscious value-judgment - will instantly register as a negative one, in the "pain" range. That's the "self-programming" written of.

Those three were from a direct quote of Peter's. Meant by him and me to be separate, distinct emotions, not lumped together. I ran with 'regret' to play out one example we know of, in real life. Sure, worry is a form of fear (a primary emotion) in anticipation of the future - I'd remarked earlier, on how emotions strongly feature in one's recollection -and- anticipation. (Along, mostly, with the immediate present).

Worry and anxiety - regret for past things. (Yes, regret - for acts undone or done that is felt as freshly today. Sometimes for a worthy opportunity, one appreciates better now, that was not pursued, was forever lost by one). Remorse, delight, shame, excitement and so on, all relate to "things" you identified and you care(d) for - or, alternately - have learned are threats to what "you care for". Reminders, even in our dreams, you have a self-programmed, emotional consciousness which can be repressed but can't be avoided, whose single job is to send urgent signals - a jab of pain, the glow of pleasure - when *this* isn't good for you, (so to be avoided or changed) or *that* IS (therefore may be continued in action; pleasure, its own reward). You, of course, set the standards and parameters based on your first, earliest sensory experiences of pain and pleasure and relocated into the subconscious. A 'habitual response' that reports in milliseconds to your brain, that saves one the time to consciously review every sudden happenstance, its merits or dangers. The system, "mechanism", is a biological 'given' and automatic, while the setting of standards, i.e. values, is never automatic but made from one's free will. They can be 'wrongful' (based on non-objective thinking/evaluations) - however - the emotions report faithfully in kind what standards you set them. They do not 'think/evaluate' for you. That good thing, that valued person, this act, that aspiration, these virtues one gained by effort (e.g. one's rationality and integrity), -- all of which one might at any time abandon (so feel an instant prod of pain) or uphold and be loyal to -- further the ultimate self-value of the entire organism and consciousness that is "you"; and its continued good function which is your life. Those emotions, in short, are on constant guard to protect those things and you from harm, physical and spiritual, or: signal all is well. One can dig into the material (neuro-biological) substance of the parts which compose the system - and which can explain the physical features, the *what* and *how* - while such examinations never explain the "why": for what PURPOSE do we feel emotions? The 'parts' and the sum of the parts can't explain the necessity of the whole. That necessity and purpose can only be deduced from actions, (by experience and introspection), and reasoned from the nature of life. Synthesized, not just analyzed. What you doubt, "evolutionary value in my brain" - a system elegantly 'designed' by nature (evolution)- is quite simply to keep the individual organism physically, cognitively and psychologically alive and well. A complete, in itself, *selfish* function. More complex and much more palpably felt than another function, say, the blood circulatory system, but as complete and as self-serving. Difference, one can 'feel for' other individuals, (to a degree), one can't pump their blood at all (nor think and value on their behalf). So yeah, those "value-judgments" some might doubt? Reducible to glows and jabs.

Mark Levin is upset. "America First" = Maintaining those many "Forward Bases" across the globe? I don't think the two are synonymous. The more places they are, the more the US gets pulled into geo-political or regional wars. Not, certainly to have *no* alliances, but to be very choosy about which alliances to pick and how far involvement goes. It is past the time other nations were encouraged to become self-interested, and self-reliant. As for "genocide" in Ukraine - the old saw, not the slightest evidence or intent. Or "appeasement" of Putin - the false dichotomy. But I found it useful to hear a (ranting) neo-con's side. Didn't know it's actually an anti-semitic slur, btw (?) Mark Levin: Appeasement of Putin Encourages Genocide | Capitalism Review CLICK.MLSEND.COM https://rumble.com/embed/vtrgrr/?pub=vwu5e According to Levin, "Isolationists believe that Russia's invasion of Ukraine doesn't affect...

Hubris. Self-delusion. Propaganda. Mind control. Ukraine or Covid policies, the greatest evils are committed by "good intentions". Get ready for everyone's "pivots". Reality might be settling in finally, that Russia wouldn't possibly lose this war - at least, for their true objective, the Donbass and coastal corridor. "Expansionism" or Empire building, defeating and occupying the greater Ukraine and beyond - into Europe! - was always neo-con fearmongering. As long as Yelensky fooled himself and was conned by media and govt's and military 'experts' that Ukraine forces, the Shield of Europe, have military supremacy and that heroism must prevail, of course he would refuse negotiations. So would most. If he doesn't enter them right now, this week, he may lose any bargaining position he still has to force concessions. Whitehall and Washington, Brussels somewhat, wanted, still want, a weakened Russia - for which Ukrainians had to pay with lives, an immoral gambit. Attempts at isolating the RF (which appears to be surviving okay and be quite self-sufficient, under heaviest-ever sanctions -- that are having a bigger blowback on the West and the rest of the world) have only succeeded in strengthening a combined Asian bloc, as Russia turns further to China (and India) for their market. How to create a single alliance of potential and future foes in three easy steps. Way to go... Good Newsweek article, too late?

If I Could Talk | Short Film WWW.THEEPOCHTIMES.COM A friend to share the ups and downs of life with him -- and, soon, his family. "If ...

Most distinctly it's biological, MSK. The "pleasure-pain mechanism", common to all mammals and animals. There's the neuro-biological base for: good for me/bad for me? After that painful/etc. assessment is made by an individual - regarding some 'thing' - the evaluation is automatically filed away in his subconscious - he will know instantly by the pertinent emotional feeling what to do when confronted by the thing ever again. At its most simplified. As I'm always mentioning my dogs' emotions, the basic ones everyone observes, and even dog guilt is very recognizable. Somewhere, as we evolved past cries, grunts and howls accompanying simple facial expressions and particular body antics, denoting the mammal's crude communication and its sense-based emotions - to cognition and verbal articulation, the human emotional range also expanded enormously. Now, one can conceptualize many scores of emotions by name.

If an "emotion" - all come from individual consciousness. How is any emotion, begun by the individual's awareness and identification, about 'something', evaluated by his individual value-importance, experienced by him personally, and biologically evolved for his own purposes of survival/well-being-- -not "individual initiated"? A self-contradiction: The "self-less" emotion. (A 'collective mind' there is not) Since I'm sure you're referring to one's emotions for and about "other people", (specifically, the group of compassion emotions) I ask by whose senses and consciousness - and by whose standards - does one see and judge others' pain, suffering, etc. - but by the individual's own experience of pain/pleasure and by what he understands is bad/good for any humankind - suffering/joy? iow, not to be confused because someone else may be the object of pity, it's you the subject who recognizes their state and has that emotion on their behalf. You feel compassion for someone because their signals of physical or psychic pain are clear to you, self-fully. Take out 'the self' and all we have is a duty to help others, without the slightest value attached to them or in helping.

Yup, man's nature.

Michael, Clearly I take the point of view that there can't be a causeless emotion. Each one had to be created by something, by some process, concerning "something" (and the value placed on it), "out there". "Like waves come" - right! One mustn't forget "the powerful role" of the subconscious, the continuous absorption by a brain of sense-stimuli, even when the mind is focused elsewhere, most of which one isn't aware one is seeing/hearing/etc. -- and its contents. (Comforting to know the senses and brain 'never sleep', in a sense, always on the broad lookout for your wellbeing and survival). So, some emotions may seem inexplicable and mysterious, such as a strange and sudden melancholy evoked when you're otherwise enjoying yourself - I think that's the subconscious in play, absorbing, recollecting, associating, and comparing, this immediate place and time, e.g. in the company of friends etc. -- with a past time and similar circumstances. Except, perhaps, some cared-for person (the "value" component) is absent here and now which subconsciously saddens one, without apparent cause. What appears inexplicable always has an explanation.

Michael, there is the interface between consciousness and biology... body-mind... that is fundamental. They can be and are allowed to pull apart, obviously. The mind produces an appropriate response we will feel emotionally, *by way of* bodily functions that are tangible. Heartbeat rises, etc.etc. [A descriptive term for emotional function, "psycho-physiological" (NB) Bodily responses initiated by seratonin, and the rest - haven't consciousness, they cannot have a clue of the 'correct' emotion to make us feel in a given circumstance to a given stimulus. Therefore, the mind-body "interface", a mind perceiving/judging/retaining - a body responding automatically to those prejudgments made: pain-pleasure, good/bad for me. One even can identify instantly the type of emotion felt and its cause: Say I feel embarrassed. I know why, exactly. e.g. I got "caught out" by my wife on some little thing. One can identify that embarrassment on others' faces, perhaps imperfectly. Often a red face is a give away. One can even feign shame, embarrassment, humiliation. (I've done some acting). An emotion is the instant and strongly felt *end result*, which can in turn be the cause of taking evasive action, etc.etc. Absolutely critical to our survival, are emotions, and not only physical-biological survival but to our consciousness' well-being and survival. I identify rigorously, enough to not have found a single self-contradiction to the basic theory. The many, unending and absorbing variations "on a theme", branching off in every direction, that's what you'd expect from this endless subject.

I am quoting what I read by someone in the field, I don't know who and he's not an Objectivist. "Surface acting intensifies the authentic, underlying feelings". The feeling of unhappiness is "exacerbated"- he wrote. This is clearly psychological, I'm sure Branden also wrote similar on living authentically.

I don't follow. This drifted to *outward displays* of emotion, not integrated (or not) FELT emotions per se . You haven't put on a smile, when you didn't feel like smiling? Nothing wrong with that, when e.g. one doesn't want to hurt someone's feelings needlessly. Or seen and heard, and this is prevalent lately with increasing fears, false laughter that doesn't ring true? But, then there's pretend expressions of 'kindness' and compassion, for advantage. I'm a student of facial expressions for my profession, and maybe they are more obvious to me. I am pointing to how many people are indeed, inauthentic; which bears on being non-integrated, lacking integrity. People fake other expressions, verbally - exactly as they would facially, usually simultaneously. In other words, they deliberately deceive.

The minor objection to that- the private, unobserved, frown or smile one often makes, and often witnesses others make when they think no one's watching. With not any effect had or intended, on another person. The basic fact is, an expression is a natural display of an authentic emotion. Of course, it can be counterfeited - inauthentically - by people for many reasons, many quite benevolent, some by hypocrites, some by predators. Because everybody knows emotive signals, anyone can pretend to be one "of your kind", with the appropriate 'emotional display' they mirror, copy, etc. . The amount of face muscles we have shows that the human expression matters - to others. Right, you'd infer interaction and cooperation of pre-verbal, early man depended on one ~seeing~ others' pain-pleasure, and its merit continues today--while one has to allow hugely for fakery of emotions. None of that detracts at all from the process of HOW an authentic emotion arises.

A little, somewhat - https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=2ahUKEwi4_IHr5YX4AhUFgv0HHWbEC1IQFnoECDMQAQ&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2Fsections%2Fhealth-shots%2F2019%2F07%2F01%2F735822187%2Fthe-science-of-smiles-real-and-fake&usg=AOvVaw0kRYeN6PgeVKtDCj3oU90F In another study I read that habitually smiling to improve one's mood soon loses its efficacy because the brain 'recognizes' it's being fooled. Further, constantly "faking it" for others, e.g. coworkers, customers, can have negative effects. "What they found is that surface acting intensifies the authentic, underlying feelings a person is experiencing, regardless of whether those feelings are positive or negative. “So, if you're faking being happy, the authentic feeling of being unhappy is exacerbated,” Lennard said. Much more fascinating, what precedes a smile or frown: In reverse: 4) The body/features responds to the prior cause 3) a specific brain cocktail released into the body, caused by 2) an observation by senses or recollected in memory, or anticipated, of - "a something". The entire process due to the first cause 1) the "value" (or disvalue) to you, that your mind made, assessed, was informed, experienced, (etc.) and habituated subconsciously - about that "something" or class of somethings. 1-2-3-4. Your mind caused the emotion your body feels. You have to know something in order to smile.

Straight talk by the Colonel

This one I think is a must. Stone ties everything together.

A talk in 2015, and Stephen Cohen called it then.

Michael, Most of the deplorables have several other fish to fry, in their priority of values, it's the elitists with money and leisure on their hands who seem to need to loudly show off their virtuous purity and condemn who doesn't. (Or be socially and otherwise banished). What is real, here and now, takes precedence over abstractions of other places and people. I was remembering my parents who went through and served in ~a total~ war with no certainty of a future. The little they told was of being concerned about simple things 'close to home' or to the barracks, life went on and they often had good times and partied. You'd imagine there were tense, nervy periods when deployed and seeing some action, and grim worries of the future when news came of armies in retreat and ships were sunk. They didn't speak much of those. But they apparently took it in their stride and still had a ball at times. Theirs was a tougher, stoical generation now quite lost to this bored, narcissistic, security-over-freedom, "safe-space", never a rough word spoken, era.

POLL: What does the West really think about the Ukrainian conflict? — RT World News WWW.RT.COM With their leaders arming Ukraine and sanctioning Russia, people in the West have mixed feelings about the response "Furthermore, they consider Russia the fourth biggest threat to America and would rather see President Joe Biden than Russian President Vladimir Putin leave office".

Which glorious culture ... do you want ... etc.? [WS] Not for you, I, or anyone to specify on others behalf. Strange as it seems to some, there are great numbers of people who choose to hold on to their ways of life, traditions, languages -- etc. untouched by modernisation. As you'd know. I could point to remote communities and villages in most of Africa and much of the M.E. If that's their source of a kind of cultural pride, self-determination and independence from outsiders, no one or Gvt. has the right to rush them against their will into the progressive era. In fact they may look at the paroxysms of civilisation today and retort: No thanks! Our slow and backward life is best. Future generations (of e.g. 'backward' Russians and E. Ukrainers) will eventually get there - just not yet. Listening to you reel off European countries, it occurs to me again that the senseless expansion of NATO (promising collective security - with conformity - and whatever else) is the perfect vehicle to help promote Shwabian and Sorosian Globalism. No joke, I heard someone say the whole world should join Nato in one great happy family. No more wars, love and peace. Right...

Already happened. Some villagers in Russia hurt and killed by Uke artillery.