Outside-In vs Inside-Out Determinism

[caroljane]

I assume you are neutral, with conflicted loyalties, as mawdsley is the mist English soinding name I ever heard.

Careful Michael. You might just find yourself a Brazilian cultured American defending an Englishman fending off a bunch of Canucks. ;-)

One assumes you are a neutral with conflicting loyalties, as Mawdsley is the most English sounding name ever.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Thanks for allowing us all here to thrash out what truth we can find, nonviolently.

Carol,

I don't mean to come down on you. It's just that my perspective is so different than where this thread is going, it's irritating me. I don't give a crap about defending scapegoats against snarky remarks and attempts at debunking. There is much more important stuff out there to think about and discuss.

So here is a bit of an explanation.

I was going to include this part in a post to William, but I prefer to direct it to you right now. At least, with you, I believe it will not be scooted over into the "let's bash Sheldrake, but pretend we aren't, and score one for the team" story and my point totally ignored.

Remember the framing story I was trying to name? I finally came up with it. But first a little context.

I have been trying to think "conceptually only" for the longest time and I believe most people who think about science try to do that, too. But it has been giving me mental indigestion. "Conceptually only" is not how the human mind works. It thinks in stories. I think in stories. You think in stories. Einstein did. We all do. That's how we frame every bit of knowledge we learn and share.

There is a very interesting book (but a bit of a hard read for the layman) called Story Proof: The Science Behind the Startling Power of Story by Kendall Haven. Here is a quote that has been haunting me.

Unconscious portions of our human brains process raw sensory input and pass it to intermediate processing areas of the brain. These areas (also in the unconscious portion of our brains) are the exact areas that are activated when humans create stories (Pinker 2000; Newquist 2004; Kotulak 1999). The output of these regions is fed to the conscious mind for consideration. In other words, the brain converts raw experience into story form and then considers, ponders, remembers, and acts on the self-created story, not the actual input experience!

The three books he referenced are The Language Instinct by Steven Pinker (2000 edition), The Great Brain Book by HP Newquist, and Inside the Brain: Revolutionary Discoveries of How the Mind Works by Ronald Kotulak. Unfortunately Story Proof was written in 2007 and not yet updated, so there are new findings in neuroscience I am sure Haven would love to include.

The point is, the mental thing Rand calls a "percept" comes embedded in a story before we can even have a chance to think about it or integrate it into a concept. What comes first, the chicken or the egg? It's actually the story about the chicken that comes first, at least in the conceptual part of our minds.

I have struggled for years with the is-ought problem and how it is treated in Objectivism. Especially Rand's statement in "The Objectivist Ethics":

... to a living consciousness, every "is" implies an "ought."

If we are talking about strict metaphysics, I can't see how that statement is true, or could be. A rock is a rock to the rock and to existence as a whole. There is no meaning other than something exits and it is a rock. But when we look at neuroscience, we see that epistemologically, Rand's statement is true. We humans cannot think "rock" without some kind of story coming along with it. This is literal and how our brains process the sensory inputs that become the word "rock." Story is the source of normative abstractions--i.e., values. (I'm talking epistemologically here, not metaphysically.)

So how is this important to judging crackpots?

I say it is fundamental.

You see, there is a word called "context" that has been used and abused in all these online discussions I have ever read or had. But with this "story mind" idea I now have, it's easy to see that "context" is nothing but a story. It's the background story we give to the thing we want to talk about. We ask, what does something mean? When we do that, we are generally asking what story that something fits into. Thus what does something mean within a specific story. What is its role?

Here's an example. What does a cross mean? To a Christian when he is thinking about the Jesus story, it is a symbol of God's love for mankind. To an anti-Islamist thinking about the recent crucifixions in Egypt story, it is proof of Islamist evil. Notice that the story does not have to be true for "cross" to have meaning in both cases. But the meanings are different because the background stories are different. Cross--the instrument of torture and execution--is the same in both cases.

Now go to Sheldrake. What does his research and odd ideas mean? I say, look at the different stories and you will see exactly what they mean. True? False?

I say "true and false" are merely labels to the storytellers. They have nothing to do with actual truth or falseness of what exists. It's all about preserving THE STORY.

Let me give an example. When I first mentioned Sheldrake with Paul, my personal story with him goes back a ways. So I was merely trying to exchange an observation, murmur something like, "Ain't that cool--see where thinking on this tangent leads you." And that's as far as I wanted to go. I remember once Paul telling me, "I am a causality freak!" So my thinking was basically, if you are a causality freak, well freak this, dude.

Along with that background story is a falling into place of some ideas I have been trying to articulate over time about natural (or metaphysical) top-down forces. Sheldrake is presenting another way of saying it or looking at it, so to speak. This does not mean that I buy into his theory 0% or 100%. All it means is that Sheldrake is presenting something really interesting to consider and it might shed some light on some other thoughts I have.

Now, before I get to the part where people start throwing stones at Sheldrake, let me unveil my name for the motherload background story. (Caution, the background story with Paul I mentioned above is not wide enough to fit into this category. I merely told it because we have to have a background.) I call it the "Fill-in-the-blank": Savior of Mankind Story. It works like this.

Christianity: Savior of Mankind Story.

Islam: Savior of Mankind Story.

Objectivism: Savior of Mankind Story.

Capitalism: Savior of Mankind Story.

Anarcho-capitalism: Savior of Mankind Story.

Progressivism: Savior of Mankind Story.

Psychology: Savior of Mankind Story.

Science: Savior of Mankind Story.

Hell, even Scientology: Savior of Mankind Story.

There are many, many, many aspirants to saving mankind. Now, here are a few characteristics.

=========================

1. The Savior of Mankind Story is the glue that holds large hostile tribes together. That is, hostile--on a fundamental level--to anything or anyone that threatens THE STORY. This is included in the very definition. If something is the "savior," then everything else is the "waster" or "killer" or "destroyer" in some form or another. There is one exception. There is innocent "raw meat," which means people who have not learned THE STORY yet. But there are varying degrees of how much a "raw meat" person can be tolerated.

2. There is a creation story--or at least origin story--as part of it. (In the Objectivism: Savior of Mankind Story, this is relatively weak, but it is still present.) There is a whence we came and a direction we are going in--with a fork in the road. One way goes to hell (or some variation of that) and the other goes to a paradise of some sort. Obviously, the superficial purpose of a Savior of Mankind Story is to plant a humongous signpost at that fork that says:

GO THAT WAY ----->

3. Man out of the box is never enough. He needs to adhere to the Savior of Mankind Story before he can become whole or worthy. And not just any Savior of Mankind Story will do. It has to be the Savior of Mankind Story that is being preached. All other humans are not whole or worthy, even if they adhere to a different Savior of Mankind Story.

4. To complement the previous comment, a Savior of Mankind Story is exclusive. There is no room in it for other Savior of Mankind Stories to be true. From within the perspective of a particular Savior of Mankind Story, all others are either errors or some kind of evil lurking in disguise. And the theme of THE STORY is that it is the ONLY metaphysical truth that can be had.

5. There is an automatic payoff for each individual who adheres to a Savior of Mankind Story. The basic payoff is to feel superior--on the deepest level possible--to the rest of mankind.

But it goes broader. I agree with something I read in a book by David Rock, Your Brain at Work. After interviewing a boat-load of neuroscientists and psychologists and looking at their findings, he saw some common themes emerging that the brain automatically (and subconsciously) scans for. He put this into a model he calls SCARF - Standing, Certainty, Autonomy, Relatedness and Fairness.

I don't have time to go into all this here, but I claim that the Savior of Mankind Story gives an unconscious payoff (thus an extremely powerful bait) to the individual by catering to each of these themes.

6. The underbelly of this payoff is the switch part in the bait-and-switch racket that is THE STORY. For instance, look at autonomy. You are promised by ALL Savior of Mankind Stories that you will be set free. But as you get deeper into it, more entangled in it and involved with others who adhere to it, you have to become more and more subservient to the OFFICIAL KEEPERS OF THE STORY.

All payoff baits in a Savior of Mankind Story come with a nasty switch. No exceptions. (That's my opinion, but I stand by it. I'm running with it for now.)

7. Since it is a "savior" story, there has to be a villain to battle. And since the story is about ALL of mankind, the villain is almost always collective. Our brains come pre-wired with an automatic fight-or-flight response to threats. Establishing a scapegoat in the story is a way of abstracting and targeting this deep-level response. In other words, scapegoating is the tip of the mind-control part of the Savior of Mankind Story--that is if the OFFICIAL KEEPERS OF THE STORY want or need this resource. Sometimes they will not use ham-handed mind-control much for one reason or another, but it is always there in ALL such stories, and it is ALWAYS used to some extent.

8. The Savior of Mankind Story is more than just true (that is, from the perspective of being within it). It becomes the be-all-end-all of a person's life. A person can be as conformist or as out-of-the-box as he wants to be, but his main theme HAS to be validation of THE STORY. That is where he has to end. No matter how much learning is involved, how much effort, how complex his thinking gets, the end result HAS to be the following on presenting the product of his effort: "Once again, we see how this proves that THE STORY is the only way."

Everything is tolerated by other THE STORY followers so long as this is the underlying theme.

Notice that even the most innocent effort that questions the validity of a Savior of Mankind Story will be met with harsh hostility. A person who has been a friend for years will stop speaking to you if you threaten his Savior of Mankind Story. You don't have to believe in it for him to be a friend, but you cannot do anything to threaten it.

How is "threat" defined? Well... you have to learn THE STORY. The only definition that counts for a follower is what comes from within THE STORY. The rest is dispensable.

9. There is a set of rules (I call them sacred texts) that cannot be questioned once you learn them. If you question them or do not obey them, you will be cast out of the tribe that is organized around the Savior of Mankind Story as a heretic and scorned.

Notice that some religions have actual ancient sacred texts that are no longer obeyed. I am not talking about these or anything formal--although what I am talking about can be expressed in formalities. I am talking about the "interpretation" or rules set by the current OFFICIAL KEEPERS OF THE STORY. They are the ones who will enforce this.

10. There is always a power structure involved in a Savior of Mankind Story. And the OFFICIAL KEEPERS OF THE STORY are much concerned with this part. They often fight with each other over it. I don't want to go into this right now, but I did want to mention it.

=========================

There are more things to think about to flesh my Savior of Mankind Story idea out, but that covers some of the basics.

Did you notice anything missing?

How about objectivity for the independent individual?

We don't peg knowledge to a thinking method like logic in order to make a value judgment. We peg it to a friggen' story. And we all do it. Even with science. In fact, this has been the reason it took me so long to see it. I was thinking about pure metaphysics, pure epistemology, etc. I wanted to know the nature of the universe without taking into consideration just how I was going to know it. So I would start with the universe as a fundamental starting element to the narratives I wanted to address. And that is a mistake. You have to start with a human story.

So we better be real careful about the stories we tell ourselves. No?

Especially in the case of the Science: Savior of Mankind Story.

Does this mean that science does not exist as a tool? Hell no. It exists. But I claim that those who use it as a tool--on a fundamental level where others are using THE STORY--are not concerned with scapegoats at all. If they come across someone or something they believe is not science, but is claiming to be, they merely laugh and go on.

It's no biggie.

But a person who is caught up in THE STORY will see red. He will have an enemy in sight and he will feel a strong urge to go to battle. He will want this to be public and he will want his tribe members to say, "Thank goodness you have struck a blow for science!" (Thus won the day for saving mankind.) It's a sacred crusade and it comes with high praise.

Notice that no one has ever fought a war over correcting an incorrect fact. But ALL wars have been--and are--fought over conflicting Savior of Mankind Stories.

And notice that precisely the luminaries who champion the Science: Savior of Mankind Story have brought us genocide (through eugenics), biochemical weapons and a whole host of goodies. They will sell out to bloody dictators for funding and position, and will still keep their conceit as being of the morally superior class.

So I don't trust them. I think they suck, to be blunt.

Now let's get to Sheldrake. Why is he a threat?

Is he a threat to science? Not at all.

He goes about his life doing some experiments and coming up with really far-out ideas to test. I have yet to hear him call his theories as anything but theories. (Sometimes, when baited, he will sound a bit like that, but I discount some of it. I prefer to listen to his more reasoned moments. I know how irritating it can get when you are constantly baited and mocked.) His work will be used or discarded over time as the results of it are implemented (or not). If his work is useless, that will be the end of it.

But Sheldrake is a HUMONGOUS threat to the Science: Savior of Mankind Story. He has a PHD fer kerissakes. Harvard. The works.

HE IS NOT SUPPOSED TO SAY CERTAIN THINGS.

When he does that, he invalidates THE STORY. Can't that blockhead see it? He is making it easy for the Religion: Savior of Mankind Story tribe to exist and near impossible for the Science: Savior of Mankind Story tribe to get total power.

Heh.

Yes, dear Carol, this is a story about power, not truth. And I admit it. Powerful tribes who are organized around a Savior of Mankind Story scare me. Especially when they can--and do without compunction--produce weapons of mass destruction.

I greatly suspect that William's interest in Sheldrake has nothing to do with morphic resonance or epigenetics (except tangentially) and everything to do with debunking him for falling outside THE STORY.

Which is why I usually respond with things like the following: I used to bunk a lot back in college. But that was in my youth. I would bunk and bunk and bunk. I bunked in buildings, I bunked on kitchen stoves, I bunked in the shower, I bunked all over the place. Now I have matured and only debunk--and even then, only a little. I have settled down.

(I wish I could claim I came up with that idea, but I got the idea from a reader comment to a news story I read somewhere.)

======================================

This has gone on long enough, but I want to present one last thing: a glimpse into a work I am writing on writing. I have not read this anywhere, but once I came up with it, I have had a much easier time analyzing text and rhetoric.

I have noticed that there are 5 main modes (or voices or roles) when writing;

1. Expert mode (I'm calling this "Big Shot" in my work in order to be colorful)

2. Witness mode

3. Compiler mode

4. Blurter mode

5. Storyteller mode

Your Expert (or Big Shot) tells you what it is. He presents facts and he implies he knows what he is talking about (or presents credentials about his expertise). But note that this is a "tone," not a "substance." You can present pure yawp in Big Shot mode.

I like the Witness mode a lot. You basically say what you have observed or reasoned out and let the reader know his mileage may vary.

The Compiler is the list-maker. Tips. Definitions. Names and addresses. Jokes. And so on.

The Blurter is expressing an opinion and reason be damned if need be.

The Storyteller puts the reader in a temporary trance with a story.

A good writer uses all of these modes in a work and each has a context where it has the greatest impact. (I have fleshed this out a lot more in the work I am writing.)

The reason I mention this here is because of something I have noticed after debating things on O-Land forums for a few years.

My whole approach is to spit myself out of Savior of Mankind Stories when I write. And that is what I think anyone who detects he or she is caught up in a Savior of Mankind Story should do. Spit. And keep spitting. Spit right on out of the story.

I try to assume a predominantly Witness mode. When I come across something that catches my interest, I present it sort of like a cat who brings home a live snake and looks at you with self-contentment and an expression of look what I found! That is, right before he tortures the poor thing to death and eats it.

The people who are caught up in Savior of Mankind Stories (whether Objectivism, Libertarianism, Science, Progressivism, whatever) get really upset with me when I do that. And they start the debunking games. It took me a long time to discern this pattern because I did not choose my Witness mode. It sort of came with me when I started writing.

But the noxious effect the game-playing has on my style is that the players (The Sacred Defenders of THE STORY) often--by simply pushing and pushing--get me to change my predominant mode from Witness to Big Shot. I have a feisty spirit and I don't like to be pushed. So they have succeeded many times in getting this result. This happened with the Islamist debates. The global warming stuff. Anarchist stuff. Starving child in the wilderness thing. Wherever there has been a strong polarity.

Scratch an ongoing nasty polarity and you will find a clash of Savior of Mankind Stories. And there is no room for a Witness on that battlefield. You are either for or against. Friend or Foe. And if you are not Friend, they will attack you. Often both sides.

All I can think of when I see that now is thank goodness I choose to live in reality--to keep my stories to reality--as much as my mind will permit, and not live in a Savior of Mankind Story.

That stuff will kill you.

Michael

[caroljane]

Michael,

This seems to be a whole other topic than the Sheldrake stuff, another area entirely. It will take me a while to absorb and try to understand it all. My first reaction though, from your first quote, that we change experience input into our own stories - does this really align with Rand's "percepts"? You know I am no Objectivist scholar and am not trying to poke holes. I am only asking. The trend of your thought here seems to go beyond Objectivism.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

This seems to be a whole other topic than the Sheldrake stuff, another area entirely.

Carol.

I have no problem discussing "the Sheldrake stuff." But I am at a point where I don't want to bother if all that effort of looking up stuff, reading, listening to lectures, etc., is for nothing but playing a game of Science: Savior of Mankind.

Like I said, I have seen too many scientists sell out to dictators, so I just don't believe the core story. Scientists are not innately superior to other people. Many are moral scumbags.

I'm still going to do all that studying, but on my terms. Because I'm truly intrigued. There are things in Sheldrake that interest me and others that don't. If someone is interested in discussing this on that level (including their own interests qua individual), I'm all for it. But a debunking contest? Taking sides for and against a collective? Jumping into a story I don't believe in and playing by those rules?

Nah. I'm not playing that game.

My first reaction though, from your first quote, that we change experience input into our own stories - does this really align with Rand's "percepts"?

Here we come to a major point of what I am talking about. It doesn't matter if Rand would agree. I don't care about the preaching part. I am not living in her story. I am me. Even when I think about complicated stuff.

And here is what I have come across. According to the findings of neuroscience, what Rand called "percept" can only exist--physically exist--if it moves up into higher parts of the brain in the form of a story (not "our own story").

The trend of your thought here seems to go beyond Objectivism.

Notice that did you?

The Witness

[caroljane]

What kind of writer am I Michael, and what is my core story?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I believe you might have adhered at one time to a Save Mankind story, but in general, I see you as predominantly an independent Witness who has had the past she has had.

I can't say the particulars of your core story, but I get the impression that the hero (you) is accepted as she is, the good part and warts and all. And she is playful.

Definitely a comedy. Not a Kung Fu story at all.

Michael

[caroljane]

Nailed me.

[Brant Gaede]

A context is a story and a story is a context. Okay. we need hooks for our knowledge and a place to hook our hooks. Thus we can learn and integrate stuff. Then we have a social context we live in which is dynamic. The reality context means it is not eschewed for another context. We want to avoid bumps and bruises, afterall. We have to be prepared by embracing that to pay the price of the loneliness of true individualism if we can't find a place or places inhabited by some such other folk--such as OL!

--Brant

I'm just reacting to part of Michael's post; I've not been following this thread very closely or diligently.

[caroljane]

A second impression. Has it been proven that we shape all our stories in reaction to "fight or flight": that is, do we always feel subconsciously endangered, and therefore need Savior narratives? Is this the dominant signal for that particular cognitive process?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

There is something else I need to add. It concerns raising the stakes.

This is why the Savior of Mankind Stories are so successful at becoming frames for the lives of people and how they evaluate existence. But don't forget that a frame is actually a cage once you crawl into it.

If you want to understand story--large scale story, that is, you are better off going to Hollywood than a research lab.

So let's do that. Here is the way they teach screenwriters that a story will engage you. First the hero has a small frustration. Then something new comes along and the stakes suddenly get higher. Stakes are values a hero stands to lose, like the stakes of a poker game. As the story progresses, the complications get worse and what the hero stands to lose gets worse. It keeps on going like that until the climax and the hero's final confrontation with the villain.

For example, he might start out by being at risk of losing his job. Suddenly he gets the news that his family has been taken hostage. Then he discovers that the bad guys who took his family are terrorists who have a dirty bomb, so they can take out a whole chunk of the city. And so on. At each step of the story, tension increases and we become caught up because the stakes keep getting higher.

There was a Science Fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard, who understood this perfectly when he came up with a religion, Scientology.

Those Scientology folks believe in some weird shit, to coin a phrase. And normal people always ask, how on earth do healthy intelligent people get hoodwinked into believing some of that stuff?

I say one of the main reasons is the slowly increasing stakes. This gets them entangled in the story so deeply that when they come up for air, they think weird shit is perfectly normal. And anyway, they have a job to do of saving mankind.

Back to point, Hubbard came up with something called the 8 dynamics of existence. The following quote is from Science of Survival.

Dynamic one is the urge of the individual to survive as himself.

Dynamic two is the urge of the individual to survive through his progeny. The second dynamic has two main subdivisions, the sexual act and the creation of children and their rearing.

Dynamic three is the urge of the individual to survive as a member of a group, whether civil, political, racial, or just a number of individuals who compose a group.

Dynamic four is the urge of the individual to reach the highest survival in terms of mankind and is the urge of mankind to survive as man.

Dynamic five is the urge to survive as a life organism and embraces all living organisms.

Dynamic six is the urge to survive as part of the physical universe and includes the survival of the physical universe.

Dynamic seven is the urge toward survival in a spiritual sense.

Dynamic eight is the urge toward survival as a part of or ward of a Supreme Being. The number eight, laid on its side, gives us the symbol -oo- for infinity.

We can shorten that.

1. Individual

2. Offspring and family

3. Social groups

4. Mankind

5. Life in general

6. Physical universe

7. Spiritual plane

8. Supreme Being

(Incidentally, for mind-control freaks, there is a cool bait and switch embedded in this. People believe they are thetans, or spirits, going up this hierarchy of existence. And that brings them great joy. But after a while, this becomes a whip in the hands of their masters. Once you are doing Dynamic 3 stuff, for example, and you promised your wife you would come home and do something important for her, if you do it and neglect your Dynamic 3 duties, you get punished for being so Dynamic 2-oriented. And it all goes downhill from there.)

But this serves as an interesting guide to raising stakes. And stake-raising is where I believe the Savior of Mankind Story gets its teeth.

Who would want to wage an entire war between countries over getting cheated out of some money? Or having his family threatened? These are bad things, but nothing to wage a full-scale war about. Once you get into threatening his country, it becomes doable. But best of all is if you convince a person he is fighting to save mankind.

Then he will go all in. Body and soul. With self-sacrifice as a supreme honor.

First you save yourself. Then you save your family. Then your friends and country. And then...

Ta Daaa!

Mankind.

Who doesn't want to save all of mankind? It's a Hollywood dream.

Other schemes of increasing the stakes can be devised, but I think Hubbard came up with a pretty good one.

Except now the progressive folks are going up into the Fifth Dynamic to save the entire planet, i.e., all of life.

Don't worry. They don't read Hubbard much so they are not going the way of the Nation of Islam (which is officially adopting Scientology). I believe the progressives got the idea from Joseph Campbell, the Hero's Journey dude.

In an interview (I think it was with Bill Moyer), he was asked if human myths would evolve. He said he thought they would and the future ones would have to be about the planet, since Planet Earth is where human life sprang from.

Not too long after that, Gaia environmentalism came into being and now we even have Avatar. The myth in the making...

Anyway, can you imagine when the stakes move on up the scale and they get to threatening the entire physical universe and the spiritual plane?

(Oops. I forgot that some folks around here are not too much on board with all that spiritual plane stuff. Still, I won't go Dynamic 8 on anyone. I hear thunder in the distance... )

Michael

EDIT: It just occurred to me that the Science: Savior of Mankind Story is not to be feared nearly as much as the Science: Savior of Planet Earth and All of Life Story is.

[Paul Mawdsley]

I assume you are neutral, with conflicted loyalties, as mawdsley is the mist English soinding name I ever heard.

Careful Michael. You might just find yourself a Brazilian cultured American defending an Englishman fending off a bunch of Canucks. ;-)

One assumes you are a neutral with conflicting loyalties, as Mawdsley is the most English sounding name ever.

Nailed me...lol. Born in England and raised in Canada with the influence of American media and determined to be the primary force shaping my own insides.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

... with the influence of American media...

Paul,

You mean something like I Love Lucy?

Now that would be some causality for ya'.

Michael

[Paul Mawdsley]

... with the influence of American media...

Paul,

You mean something like I Love Lucy?

Now that would be some causality for ya'.

Michael

Naah... came to Canada a little after that. More like Gilligan's Island. Although, as an 8 year old in the early 70s in England, life stopped for Match of the Day on Saturdays and Star Trek on Wednesdays.

[caroljane]

... with the influence of American media...

Paul,

You mean something like I Love Lucy?

Now that would be some causality for ya'.

Michael

Naah... came to Canada a little after that. More like Gilligan's Island. Although, as an 8 year old in the early 70s in England, life stopped for Match of the Day on Saturdays and Star Trek on Wednesdays.

But how could life continue without Corrie on Sundays?

[Paul Mawdsley]

But how could life continue without Corrie on Sundays?

So funny! I have made some big changes in my life the last few years. I've moved people who suck my energy out to the periphery and those who feed my energy to the centre. One thread that connects all the important women in my life is a love for Corrie Street. And they seem to instantly like each other when they discover this in common. Don't understand it but I have a definite fondness for Corrie girls.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

I'm just reacting to part of Michael's post; I've not been following this thread very closely or diligently.

Brant,

Then may I offer a suggestion? Go here and scroll down half-way through my post. I kinda rewrote a fairy-tale and I believe it will be a good entree for your wicked appetite.

(Maybe I should quote it, but I don't want to give a wrong impression.)

Michael

[Brant Gaede]

I'm just reacting to part of Michael's post; I've not been following this thread very closely or diligently.

Brant,

Then may I offer a suggestion? Go here and scroll down half-way through my post. I kinda rewrote a fairy-tale and I believe it will be a good entree for your wicked appetite.

(Maybe I should quote it, but I don't want to give a wrong impression.)

Michael

Thx for the update on the classsic Emperor story. I liked it a lot. But my "wicked appetite"? Just what am I projecting here? I only want to redress or strip and expose while having some proximate fun.

--Brant

get naked folks--Now!

[caroljane]

This has gone on long enough, but I want to present one last thing: a glimpse into a work I am writing on writing. I have not read this anywhere, but once I came up with it, I have had a much easier time analyzing text and rhetoric.

I have noticed that there are 5 main modes (or voices or roles) when writing;

1. Expert mode (I'm calling this "Big Shot" in my work in order to be colorful)

2. Witness mode

3. Compiler mode

4. Blurter mode

5. Storyteller mode

Your Expert (or Big Shot) tells you what it is. He presents facts and he implies he knows what he is talking about (or presents credentials about his expertise). But note that this is a "tone," not a "substance." You can present pure yawp in Big Shot mode.

I like the Witness mode a lot. You basically say what you have observed or reasoned out and let the reader know his mileage may vary.

The Compiler is the list-maker. Tips. Definitions. Names and addresses. Jokes. And so on.

The Blurter is expressing an opinion and reason be damned if need be.

The Storyteller puts the reader in a temporary trance with a stor

Michael

What forms of writing are you examining? Nonfiction only?

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I came up with this in order to understand how to reverse-engineer sales pages without doing the paraphrase thing. In marketing, it is common to take a high-converting sales pages, break it down into parts and paraphrase each of them, but with your product and particulars. All professional copywriters have a collection of high-converting ads they have copied from around and they call this a "swipe file."

Obviously, there are degrees of this. Some folks do it in a rip-off manner that borders on plagiarism. Others are creative and use swipes more as frames and inspiration, so they basically extract the molds and fill them in with new stuff.

I wanted to go deeper, so I looked for patterns. I have since seen that the little tool I came up with applies to all kinds of writing, including fiction, although fiction is storytelling. The tool works there because a lot of times an author will use two or more voices at the same time.

For instance, a joke book. Here you have Storyteller and Compiler doubled up.

And interesting thing about this is if you stay in one voice for too long, it gets boring. For example, many scientific papers are dull because of nonstop Big Shot voice. A sermon or political speech or rant without stories gets real boring because of too much Blurter voice. And so on. Even a story without a point gets boring.

In my work I am doing case studies to show how these things interact. Here is a small taste using a recent post as example. In the thing I am writing, I am analyzing texts from well-known writers.

Witness:

There is something else I need to add. It concerns raising the stakes.

Big Shot:

This is why the Savior of Mankind Stories are so successful at becoming frames for the lives of people and how they evaluate existence.

Blurter (mixed with Big Shot):

But don't forget that a frame is actually a cage once you crawl into it.

Big Shot (mixed with Storyteller):

If you want to understand story--large scale story, that is, you are better off going to Hollywood than a research lab.

So let's do that. Here is the way they teach screenwriters that a story will engage you. First the hero has a small frustration. Then something new comes along and the stakes suddenly get higher. Stakes are values a hero stands to lose, like the stakes of a poker game. As the story progresses, the complications get worse and what the hero stands to lose gets worse. It keeps on going like that until the climax and the hero's final confrontation with the villain.

For example, he might start out by being at risk of losing his job. Suddenly he gets the news that his family has been taken hostage. Then he discovers that the bad guys who took his family are terrorists who have a dirty bomb, so they can take out a whole chunk of the city. And so on. At each step of the story, tension increases and we become caught up because the stakes keep getting higher.

There was a Science Fiction writer, L. Ron Hubbard, who understood this perfectly when he came up with a religion, Scientology.

Blurter:

Those Scientology folks believe in some weird shit, to coin a phrase.

Big Shot:

And normal people always ask, how on earth do healthy intelligent people get hoodwinked into believing some of that stuff?

Witness

I say one of the main reasons is the slowly increasing stakes. This gets them entangled in the story so deeply that when they come up for air, they think weird shit is perfectly normal.

Blurter (because of the implied irony):

And anyway, they have a job to do of saving mankind.

Big Shot:

Back to point, Hubbard came up with something called the 8 dynamics of existence. The following quote is from Science of Survival.

===========================

Let me jump so this doesn't get tedious.

Compiler:

We can shorten that.

1. Individual

2. Offspring and family

3. Social groups

4. Mankind

5. Life in general

6. Physical universe

7. Spiritual plane

8. Supreme Being

===========================

I could keep going, but I think you see what a good little tool this is. If I were to revise that post, which, in my opinion, is way too much mix and match to let any of the voices attain maximum impact, I would start by making sure the sequence of ideas is as I want, then I would work hard on getting the voice tone tightened and polished--especially if there are payoff phrases I wish to emphasize. A lot of my forum writing is unpolished because I do it off the top of my head. Also, I haven't been using this tool long enough to internalize any "voice" skills, so my posts are generally a hodge-podge. Whatever comes out comes out.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Carol,

I want to continue on my Savior of Mankind theme and how it pertains to the "Science: Savior of Mankind Story" mindset.

I mentioned that the deal is power, not truth. I did some thinking on this and I believe this observation cuts deeper than I imagined when I said it.

Look at a paradox with traditional THE STORY science thinkers. They claim that evolution is the deal and that consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter.

OK so far. But here's the Emperor is Naked question. If consciousness emerged from non-conscious matter through evolution, is evolution now done? Is current man where it stops? If so, why?

This is a question I have only seen addressed in science by the Sheldrakes and Liptons and others marginalized as crackpots.

But think about it. If you propose that science is only deterministic and you--Carol--are looking at science, think of the power you can have over all of existence merely by being able to learn it. Then you can break things down, peg them to math, and rebuild stuff to your heart's content. You can crumble the universe and remake it in your image.

Wow!

Now that's a rush!

(No matter that to feel that way, you have to call conscious awareness an "illusion" and other similar idiocies.)

At any rate, such a feeling of power is an overwhelming, all-consuming rush. It blinds you and informs all your later thinking. As a former addict, I know about these kinds of rushes.

But let's go back to evolution. How does that take place? One individual in a species at a time, then reproduction. Right? There is no on-off switch where a whole species suddenly acquires a new characteristic. Some individuals have to acquire it while others do not acquire it. And those who acquire it have to be more successful at reproducing than those who do not.

That is the standard layman's explanation of evolution.

Now suppose that evolution is not done with humans. Suppose that humans are still evolving. This would mean that some characteristics will be borne by some individuals and not by others.

Now, back to you from within the "Science: Savior of Mankind Story." Imagine the power rush when you realize you can be the one who determines--through deterministic science--which characteristics will survive for all of mankind! You can engineer the future of the species! You can make man become anything you wish!

Wow, again!

But suppose evolution is not just deterministic. Suppose there is a strong random element, also. And suppose instead of evolving horizontally, humans are also evolving vertically.

Horizontal means enhancing the characteristics that already exist. Stronger eyesight. Better memory. Longer life-span. And so on. Vertically means acquiring new characteristics altogether. Like the fish that crawled out of the water, gradually acquired means to breathe air and not water, and gradually grew legs and wings for mobility.

Did a fish before that realize there was air it could fly in? Hell no. All it knew was water.

Now apply this thinking to humans. Is there a possibility that there are parts of reality that humans do not perceive because they have no organs to perceive them with? (Say telepathy and other woo-woo stuff?)

Or maybe humans live in such a massively controlling environment (like water for the fish), the characteristics they do have that could perceive such a part of reality do not have the opportunity? And that by futzing around all over the place like the fish did, we humans can come to the edges of our environment and discover there is more beyond the boundary? (Like land and air for the fish?)

And isn't it possible that some people at any given time would have certain experiences while other do not and could not have them? That's in line with the classic view of evolution.

This seems entirely plausible to me. But it is heresy to the "Science: Savior of Mankind Story" adherent. If he admits this possibility, he loses control of all that imaginary power. He is no longer Master of the Universe, he is an individual within a species that is evolving. This means that he--the very scientist--could be one of the unlucky individuals who do not develop. (gasp!)

And this is the reason I believe they bash the Sheldrakes of science so hard rather than ignore them. The vision of science the "Science: Savior of Mankind Story" adherent wants to encourage is from the perspective of "Man: Master of the Universe." The vision Sheldrake presents is "Man: The Evolving Being."

In the first case, all you have to do is study what exists and you dominate reality. In the second, you might grow into something you are usure of. That's scary, huh?

Please, understand, I am not being an apologist for Sheldrake. I am just now learning his stuff. But I am advocating for what he stands for.

I believe both views of science exist and are valid. I believe we are masters of what we can control metaphysically. But I also believe we are evolving.

So, metaphysics-wise, I see one kind of scientist as a Big Shot (to use my literary term) devling into reality and bringing everything he can observe and ferret out into the pool of mankind's knowledge, then fiddling with it. He is on the top looking down.

And I see the other as a Witness and pioneer, pointing to areas that are beyond the perceived horizon and trying to go there. He is on the bottom looking up.

I believe the jobs of these two types are different.

And I believe it is an error--on many levels, including a public relations error--for a Big Shot to keep trying with massive effort to discredit a Witness. All it shows is that the Big Shot is not so big after all and there is not as much shot in his rifle as he claims.

In other words, his thing is power at root, not truth. Truth is only a means to get power to him.

And to me, that is such a small, insignificant reason for living and working...

Michael

[caroljane]

Using your hypothesis, Michael, I can see the scientists as Witnesses, and the Sheldrakes as Noetic Science Saviour of Mankind storytellers.

I am aware that scientists are used, sometimes willingly, for destructive ends by power lusters., But science itself is not about power but about reality insofar as we are able to perceive it, about observable facts.

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Using your hypothesis, Michael, I can see the scientists as Witnesses, and the Sheldrakes as Noetic Science Saviour of Mankind storytellers.

Carol,

That happens sometimes. You get that when you get the "Noetic Science: Savior of Mankind Story."

You really get that with the Religion: Savior of Mankind Story.

Please note that I am not against science. (Nor religion, for that matter.) I AM against using the Savior of Mankind Story as a frame for living. It doesn't matter who does it or what they know.

Saviors of Mankind always wage war against the Enemies of Mankind.

How do you know which is which? Learn THE STORY.

And where do you learn that? From them and only from them.

This has nothing to do with facts.

Also, I disagree with your insinuation that "scientists are used" by "power lusters" and that is all they have on the negative side. When a scientist is informing his life according to the Science: Savior of Mankind Story, he IS a power-luster.

He will lie, falsify data (just look at the news), bash scapegoats, interfere with funding and do all kinds of monkeyshines to emerge victorious over the Enemies of Mankind. The worst, of course, is selling out to bloody dictators.

Michael

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

Let me add to my last post.

Here is how I tend to navigate through all the yelling with the different Saviors of Mankind.

I break down their messages as best I can into information, storytelling, monkeyshines, and scapegoating. I try to absorb the information for my own intellectual enrichment. I try to learn the stories, monkeyshines and scapegoating so I know what will be thrown at me if I interact with such a person and with other Saviors of Mankind when discussing the first.

Michael

[william.scherk]

Michael, you asked upthread earlier if either Paul and I were looking at what you were looking at, asked if we had watched the whole video . I saw no need to answer, as my next answers referred to the content of the video.

Confusion comes from a missing bit of information.

William,

I have been mulling whether to challenge this or not, and what to do about the bad taste it is leaving in my mouth.

In my view, you did not even look at the video I embedded and posted an identical one as if it were new. Normally, when someone completes missing information, he says he is... er... completing missing information. He doesn't present something as if it were brand new with a smug "recommendation" for the audience.

In my view, you misunderstood what I mean by missing information. The missing information was the draft post, which had my first reference to the Google Video. I remembered having written it, but I misremembered having put it in play. So when the link showed up in line, the information that I also watched the video (the whole video) was missing.

I looked at the video you embedded, brother. I clicked through to Youtube to discover the date and venue. Youtube had no date or venue information. I searched for another instance of the video (after having watched it to extract information on its title) to find out more details about the talk, perhaps a transcript. I found no transcript but found the Google version of the video, and then found the site the contained the line-up of hucksters at the freaking conference. The Google video is the better representation of the talk to my eyes because it said on the page where it happened and what it was called. Your embed did not.

So, you accuse me of gameplaying, denial, gotcha-ism, and lying about watching the video.

It is obvious I watched the freaking video, because my next posts referred closely to and cited and excerpted the freaking video.

Please advise on my newest thought-crime in contesting your characterization.

I have a long post I am willing to write that is outlined in my head. It might explain to you why I go off on these things that you think are crackpot. And I have no doubt you have not considered some of it.

But I am not willing to take the time from my projects--which sorely need my dedicated time--in order to play gotcha and deniability mind games.

If you don't value my time enough to say what it is the way it is, I do.

So I'm thinking if I should even bother...

Go on and bash Sheldrake to the skies to feel good within THE STORY you have adopted. I have better things to do than play this game.

Michael

Whatever you decide to do is good, Michael. I am interested enough in Sheldrake to continue my posts highlighting and exploring his ideas -- and to continue to post critical comments on his ideas.

If you want to step back from examining Sheldrake and his claims, his narrative of science delusions, no worries. You write that "This does not mean that I buy into his theory 0% or 100%." Fair enough. You have other fish to fry.

Despite your characterization of William as some story-enforcer, a bad guy, I see myself doing good, reasonable probing of theories and implication. One thing on your list of archetypes-of-story-voice might be Factchecker. Is there room in your story -- besides a stoning, malevolent 'basher' type -- for more neutral inquiry? Is it all slurs, 'debunk,' bash, cast stones? Are all the voices who counter Rupert Sheldrake a cohort of this slimey crew? Do they all harbour 'the bug' of True Belief?

You might be right about the Story. It could be that Saviour Science cultists will do their dangedest to poor Sheldrake. They will bash, they will slur, they will cast stones at poor Rupert Sheldrake. They are but conductors of The Dominant Discourse, The Orthodoxy, Them, another tribe, power-mad and bent on destruction.

But, what about his Story, as Sheldrake Saviour of Science? If, as you tell Carol, it is always story, always tribes, always saviours, always power ... and rarely and glancingly about truth, then how about examining Sheldrake's story for the awful elements of power politics it surely contains? Sheldrake is pretty clear that despite its delusions, his ideas can save Science!

As for 'bashing' and 'stoning' Sheldrake, is this the only tale to tell of critical attention to Sheldrake? Is all critical attention paid, every argument, every doubt, every pointed question and observation of critics 'bashing' and 'slurs' and so on?

What I get from your responses to me is that you see me allied to the foxes of Nuclear Destruction and Evul, The Orthodox Science Saviour Story Power Monger Elite Stoners. The use of language to demonize my opinions is really over the top, brother. You cast me as some kind of odious, sneaky, lying, game-playing stooge of an evangelical movement that wants to win at all costs. You underline to readers that my game has nothing to do with truth, all to do with base motives, with a crushing Saviour Story ...

I do not see myself in the story you tell of my engagement with Sheldrake. I think you are unfair in your comments.

Oh man, just when I thought I could get away with lip service to the Lifelong Learning dogma..

OK, I'll follow up a bit. I f I can understand this stuff, anybody can.

Those who are still paying attention to Rupert's Story, as told by him in his most recent book The Science Delusion(UK)/Science Set Free: 10 Paths to New Discovery(US), know that he claims ten essential dogmas of science. Carol, it might be just you and me, so go get another cup of coffee and have a gander at this, from the introduction:

[Michael Stuart Kelly]

One thing on your list of archetypes-of-story-voice might be Factchecker. Is there room in your story -- besides a stoning, malevolent 'basher' type -- for more neutral inquiry? Is it all slurs, 'debunk,' bash, cast stones? Are all the voices who counter Rupert Sheldrake a cohort of this slimey crew? Do they all harbour 'the bug' of True Belief?

William,

I don't think you understood a word I wrote. I mentioned voice tones of writing, not "archetypes-of-story-voice." I merely used terms like Witness and Blurter to be colorful, to have a metaphor to hang the idea on, not to creat full-bodied archetypes.

What you call Factchecker would fall under Witness if he said, "I found these facts that dispute those presented, but others might exist." Or he might fall under Big Shot and say, "What XXXX said is factually wrong and here are my sources."

I think you are living within your Save Mankind Story so deeply that you can only see voice tone in terms of attack and defense. Good Guy and Bad Guy. Factchecker and Loon. (All right, Loon is my idea. ) You can attack or defend with any of the five I mentioned. You can check facts or you can be a loon. I tried to come up with postures of communication (that I call voices) that apply to all messages.

But, what about his Story, as Sheldrake Saviour of Science?

To be honest, I don't take it seriously. It's no biggie for me since I have no interest in SAVIORS.

But there are a couple of points I agree with him on in his little story (just like there are points I agree with in the Science: Savior of Mankind Story adherents). In Sheldrake's case, I think it is a good thing someone is bringing up the dogma that is rampant and defended with all due nastiness within the science world. Someone has to say it. If I come across someone else saying this, I will agree with that person, too.

And I like the fact that his Savior of Science Story will be a HUGE thorn in the side of the Science: Savior of Mankind Story dudes and gals. But that part is only entertainment value for me.

As for 'bashing' and 'stoning' Sheldrake, is this the only tale to tell of critical attention to Sheldrake? Is all critical attention paid, every argument, every doubt, every pointed question and observation of critics 'bashing' and 'slurs' and so on?

What I get from your responses to me is that you see me allied to the foxes of Nuclear Destruction and Evul, The Orthodox Science Saviour Story Power Monger Elite Stoners. The use of language to demonize my opinions is really over the top, brother. You cast me as some kind of odious, sneaky, lying, game-playing stooge of an evangelical movement that wants to win at all costs. You underline to readers that my game has nothing to do with truth, all to do with base motives, with a crushing Saviour Story ...

I do not see myself in the story you tell of my engagement with Sheldrake. I think you are unfair in your comments.

Oh, stop playing the victim. You don't get to bash a person like people always bash scapegoats, then get all teary-eyed when someone calls you a scapegoat basher.

Dispute Sheldrake all you want.

I don't care.

But I do think your core motivation is to live within your STORY and trounce a bad guy, not to examine information or ideas. Of course you examine information and ideas, but from what I can tell, that is secondary in priority--and a pretty long second at that. In the way I judge your writing (on this topic, but not so much on others) you have to validate THE STORY more than anything else.

So go get him, tiger. The world needs saving...

Michael