Serapis Bey

Mike: yes, I totally agree. I posted while I was only halfway through the video, but the remaining lecture teetered into apologia for Progressives, with cheap shots at conservatives to boot.. Can you believe he thinks conservatives are better at psychology than progressives? Pure propaganda, IMO. That Pinker review Xray posted really drove the point home. But I agree that he is EXCELLENT when he discusses neuroscience and the nature of mind and language -- something I'm glad to see getting a larger hearing. And I think his research has troubling implications for Objectivists when it comes to their simple-minded conceptions of Man and his capacity for "reason." At the risk of sounding like a druggie, I have to say that it was my experience with drugs that served to knock me off my Oist trajectory and led me to psychedelic philosophers like Robert A. Wilson and Hyatt. And that, in turn, led me to peeking into the thoughts of folks like Wittgenstein and Korzybski/General Semantics. There's a lot of good material there, and it would behoove Objectivists to acquaint themselves with it. Not to accept it wholesale, but to realize there are aspects of the human experience that fall outside Objectivism's strictures, and if approached judiciously, could prove useful in making their message more persuasive. Of course, leftists/progressives drink deeply from the same well, so what we are left with is an arms race of sorts. Aye, that's the rub. Trust me, I know the feeling. [Going off topic for a moment: where the hell is William Scherk? I spend a couple years lurking here, enjoying his posts (even if I disagree with him), and now that my posse is here, he vanishes...?]

Hey, that's my style. Don't feel bad Bob. All of us, men and women alike, will be there one day. As I used to say whilst tripping, "EVERYONE gets a turn at bat" (so to speak) Now that I think about it, "cruel but amusing" is a rather fine way of looking at life itself, no? That is, if one suffers from the affliction known as "acute perception" and wants to keep their sanity.

NO ONE LEAVES THE CARAVAN (GREAT track, criminally underrated band)

Never heard of this guy before, but someone on Facebook posted this video and I found it very insightful and thought provoking. Not necessarily endorsing anything here, and I wasn't sure if this should be posted in Epistemology or Ethics or Politics, but I think it's right up MSK's alley:

Hmmm. Sounds like SOLO-P is my kind of joint. Might have to pull up stakes here...

One is free of course to roar like a Lion while vanquishing Nits, but try not to get in the way of those who are busy slaying Dragons. K? K. Otherwise you just stall the progress of good people. The Perfect is the enemy of the Good.

Without wanting to get embroiled in your perspective, I would point out that the main flaw in your thesis lies in your notion of "government" as a monolithic entitiy. Your thinking is far too primitive -- too much "black vs. white" or "us vs. them" Yes, we can talk about "government" in conceptual terms, but normal people understand that "government" is nothing other than a collection of individuals, each with their own unique perspective, stations in life, and motivations. So, for example, you might have an FBI director who is bothered by his wife's adulteries, and takes his frustrations out on his charges, one of whom is struggling with his faith in God, and who subsequently alters his behavior around Christian suspects. This is only one example. Yes, it's important to realize that people in power, those who have authority, tend to do what they can to maintain their power, but they are not a BORG, and I would suggest your thinking needs to become more nuanced.

Woshamaetter Kacy? Woshamaetter little boy? Don't got nuff dick for Objectivist Liviiiiinggg???

...in which Daunce and Ba'al are a married couple:

Robert Baratheon confronts Kacy Ray in public (true story!):

LOL

I wish I had the video in question. I have a feeling his presentation was not quite as hamfisted as you portray here. For one, I am sure "iron-age" is your own characterization. In any case, what I DO know is that neither RB or I chimed in with a mindless, "Yeah!", "You tell 'em, Pat", "Way to go!". Instead, as we usually do, we provided a nuanced explication of what we found to be valid in his presentation. You decided not to engage us, offering instead a response meant to shame and shut us down. To the viewing audience: note how Kacy, a.k.a SuperReasonMan, atheist and free thinker, preferred not engage in reasoned debate with two friends who have a reputation for being critical thinkers (if I do say so myself - *straightens tie*). Much like the time (told elsewhere on this forum) when I confronted him with the Jewish Question, his only reply was to wonder aloud what our Jewish friend would think -- and he wasn't even fond of that friend at the time! Apparently, like a good Progressive, there is a list of Verboten Crimethink, and the way you contain it is through manipulation tactics like shame. It's a very effective technique, and if Kacy would merely own up to being a liberal, I would let it rest. But RB and I have gotten ulcers over the years watching the disconnect between Kacy's behavior and his claim of being libertarian. We need relief! Returning to the original topic of this post, I offer this study just for shits and giggles. This should be of concern to anyone who claims to be an advocate of limited government. Perhaps the Muslims had it right all along? ;)

No. You are correct: you never did use the phrase "fair and balanced" to decribe your online activity. But I have to follow Mike here and note that once again you are more concerned with the words than with the behavior they are attempting to describe (it's easy to win arguments with hairsplitting pedantry.) In this case, my use of the phrase was meant to refer to the Great Debates that you, me and RB used to have over your obvious bias against conservatives in spite of your claims of being a libertarian. Time and time again when we would raise the issue you would clarify that you were not a liberal, that you were a libertarian, and even more fundamentally that you were an Advocate of Reason. You claimed no bias or slant, just the righteous pursuit and mockery of irrationality and injustice in the world -- "let the cards fall where they may" The recent discussion in this thread should demonstrate to any casual observer that RB and I were not imagining things. In furtherance of my point, I would draw your attention to the debates you and I had long before you began your crusade against conservatives and Tea Partiers on Facebook. This was back when The Daily Show was just beginning its rise to success. You were immediately a big fan, while I had some nagging reservations. I didn't particularly like what I saw to be an obvious leftist bias to the show. You honestly had no idea what I was talking about. You saw no bias. As our debates grew more involved, your repeated defense of the show was that the show was a satire and was meant to mock stupidity in general. You pointed out that Jon Stewart also mocked Democrats on occasion. Then came the day when you posted a Facebook update to PROVE that The Daily Show was not biased -- the link had to do with a Jon Stewart bit where he mocked President Obama for something he had done. I pointed out to you, no doubt to your chagrin, that they were mocking him for not being leftist enough. In the ensuing thread, one of your sharper Progressive friends (Melissa I believe), in the process of arguing a larger point with me, inadvertently let the cat out of the bag. She said, "I don't know ANYONE who denies that The Daily Show is biased towards the left." Her intention was to follow that up with a jab about how Fox News is similarly biased to the right. Your attempt to square the circle in your reply was fun to watch. "If not, keep on choppin' away at that strawman." No strawman here. Just the relentless activity of acute perception.

That's a lie. I believe RB and I tried to open your mind to the larger question of sources and funding maybe 3 or 4 times, and that was long ago (something like years). When it became clear that you would not concern yourself with such things, he and I focused on debating the topics on the merits. I do recall however a certain video of Pat Robertson you once posted, along with the usual sneering and smug commentary. Strangely enough, both RB and I actually agreed with the point he was making, and we arrived at our view independently (or perhaps it was that MindMeld of ours ). Your response? "Man, when you find yourself agreeing with someone like Pat Robertson, you really ought question your sanity." (paraphrased) Nice example of Free Thinking there, Mr. Reason.

You're jumping the gun here, Mike. Kacy started his discussion group a few months ago, but RB and I had been upbraiding him for YEARS over his clearly lopsided attempt at "fair and balanced."

Actually, you have it backwards. It's a solipsistic deceit that our subjective experience of time is the "accurate" one. My experience under the influence, seared into my brain, is that time is truly an illusion, a magic show basically. I "saw" or "felt" or "experienced" that the Big Bang (or however you chose to conceptualize the "beginning" of time) was never over, that is is happening NOW, and ALWAYS, and that the "past", "present" and "future" are merely subjective reference frames. It is ALL one big NOW, forever blooming and dying and being recycled again. Our coventional notion of time is like an arrow, or rather, like a ski-lift that we ride along, slowly moving through a certain time "substance". But that is merely how we experience it subjectively. In reality, everything in the universe has already happened, but our peculiar possession of consciousness is merely a passive observer of what has already happened, and we experience this perception of Fate as movement through time and motion. This was one of my experiences which compelled me to lean towards your notion of determinism as against free will. Although I'm still very much undecided on the issue. I'm sure Dennis or Bob can say more about the nature of Time.

Yes and no. I wasn't describing Enlightenment, I was describing the experience of the willfull intrusion of Ego into the murky realms and brackish waters where Ego and Reality meet. I understand that psychedelics are perceived ambivalently by "purists" in the Eastern tradition. That is, psychedelics have often served as a bridge to those who eventually end up full-fledged adherents of whatever Tradition. On the other hand, psychedelics are seen by Eastern purists as a "quick and dirty" means of circumventing the hard work in attaining "enlightenment." There is some truth to this because the drugs do introduce a lot of "noise" in the otherwise pure "signal" -- such "noise" often being the perceptual effects which so entrance those who take these chemicals for recreational purposes. I understand this because it was my time experimenting with psychedelics that served as one of several catalysts in my break with orthodox Objectivism, and led to a period of study involving meditation and Eastern esoteric thought. At the time I was still an uptight and overly serious control-freak with an inflated ego. The perfect specimen to be "taught" by the psychedelic experience. What I mean is, I was the exact opposite of the sort of person who normally would appreciate such experiences. I had a lot of bad trips. I can recall curling into a fetal position, fearing for my sanity, begging whatever gods there were to make it stop - "help me help me help me help me, why did I do this I don't enjoy this I'm never doing this again", etc. This was because I was still excessively tied to my ego and need for control-through-understanding. When you flood the brain with overwhelming sensory input, there is no way your "normal" monkey-mind can process it all. I believe an analogy Leary made was of being a single mouth attempting to drink in the whole ocean -- give up the attempt, you will be drowned soon enough. Not being one who accepts defeat easily, I repeatedly endured the experience on multiple occassions with the intention to "conquer" it. And whatever success I made in that department did not involve the forceful application of more Will or Ego, but by learning to "let go" and realize that it was OK to lose control to a certain extent. That was when the true insights came. There's a Tool song I posted in another thread dealing with the LSD experience, and one of the repeated lyrics is "prying open my third eye." Prying is the right word when you consider someone who has had no meditative experience. LSD is like taking a crowbar and forcing your way in to "enlightenment." It doesn't come without significant suffering when you attempt a shortcut. The reason I have mentioned things like LSD and Gurdjieff here is because I don't think pure Buddhism or Zen or meditation would find purchase among most Objectivists. In my estimation, people who eventually gravitate to the latter tend to already be of a certain temperament and constitution. More passive. But Objectivism is all about capitalism...progress...dynamism...Type A personalities, etc. I do not think such people would ever find the patience or motivation for the rigorous discipline and TIME involved in getting "there" naturally. The gains and rewards are too slow in coming, and do not provide enough feedback to induce one to continue. On the other hand, Gurdjieffian "egoism" (and of course the relentless slam of an acid trip), would tend to be more amenable to people who still want to act and purse goals, etc. -- keeping the ego front and center, yet polished and streamlined a little, in other words. In closing, there is the story (probably apocryphal) once told to me by an old hippie about a group of Americans in the sixties who visited India in search of "enlightenment" and "great truths". Richard Alpert/Ram Dass might have been the central figure. Like many at the time, they had dabbled in psychedelics and Eastern thought. They hiked a mountain in search of some famous Yogi, and upon finding him, settled in. One of the group had brought along a stash of LSD in the hopes of assisting their efforts. The Yogi caught wind of their discussion and inquired about this "LSD" he had heard many Americans were experimenting with lately. After having the basics described to him, he asked to see it. One of the Americans handed over the pouch containing a large number of doses. The Yogi dumped a handful out and threw them in his mouth. The rest of the group were aghast since the Yogi had just consumed about 10 times the amount of a "strong dose" -- an amount that would have made an experienced acid-head lose his marbles forever. After listening to their warnings and concerns, the Yogi assumed a Lotus position and closed his eyes. After several hours of not moving or speaking, he opened his eyes and said, "Not bad. But it's not the real thing."

Dude, he died 5 years ago. And I could swear we talked about it at the time.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Hofmann D'oh! I've got egg on my face I'm going to have a word with the individual on my Facebook who posted that Wired article. *scuttles away*

Self-sacrifice is an addiction. Self-sacrificers are often closet- or ex-morphine addicts. I can't begin to tell you how many addictions are prevented and/or "cured" through substitution. The number would certainly be startling to most people. - C.S. Hyatt All of us (the human race, that is) find ourselves thrown into this world at birth like a fish yanked out of water and left to flounder on dry land. Like the fish writhing, it's fishlips puckering in and out in a desperate attempt to take in sustenance, we too seek to soothe our souls with something...anything...to stave off the existential void which looms just around the corner when our basic survival needs are met. The horror, the horror...

Yes, he deserves one. I wasn't aware until today that the image I posted in the OP was done by Alex Grey. Facepalm. I shoulda known. Now there's a guy who owes his career to Hofmann. He's holding a memorial service at his "Sacred Mirrors" gallery in a few days. Let us not despair. As all the old acidheads said when Leary passed: "[Hofmann]'s not dead. He's just on the outside looking in." If you've had the experience, you know how there's a certain truth to that statement.

In a surprising example of synchronicity (or just the Higher Powers looking in on our conversation here) Albert Hoffman, the discoverer of LSD, died yesterday at 102. No relation to Daunce, sources confirmed. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2008/04/lsd-inventor-al/

Which one, me? Yeah right. Just so no OLers get the wrong idea, Serapis is chronically stash-less. He's all grasshopper, no ant ethic; no planning beyond the range of the moment. And then there's the curse he lives under, but I'm going to leave the details of that well-founded superstition dark.Anyone heard of Silk Road? Any experiences to share? http://reason.com/blog/2013/04/29/vice-interviews-silk-road-black-market-d I've heard mixed things. Apparently many people have had no problem, but some of my more paranoid druggie/hacker friends think the encryption can be be broken at certain server points. Why don't you give it a whirl and let me know how it goes?

Now, let's not carried away. I like Bob as much as the next guy, but statuesque he ain't.

"alter kocker kat"? Google fails me.