Showing posts with label Sociology. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sociology. Show all posts

Tuesday, 18 June 2024

Why Yes


“Fleshlights are amazing. They detox men from their nasty bitch ex. Empower men by being always willing. They do what a perfect woman does.”  Rachel Bree



A woman who is always willing is respected more than any other. A woman who turns sex into a transactional power game is a problem. It is that simple.


Yet it is a founding principle of female empowerment which has resulted in the conflict of modern society. The role of the male is to bring stability to this by providing structure for order.


We are biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual. To work with our bodies needs in a healthy way is regarded by some cultures as divine. The bodies needs for health and healthy living is to not fight against these things and repress them. 


For men, this is deep rooted. As far as understanding abandonment anxiety is concerned, this is a core aspect affecting it from the male perspective of having to deal with what makes men tick. 


I do not know if it is exactly the same for women. I have attempted to discuss this with many different women. Some of whom I have had sexual relationships and some of whom it was platonic and/or professional. My findings are as follows. 


Women with whom I have attempted to discuss this with and who have acknowledged it could be, also happen to be more sexually willing to please men. 


Women who absolutely shout down any such discussion at all, also happen to exhibit the most severe dysfunctional behaviour and antisocial personality disorders. To such women sex is either a non-entity or is transactional. 


This is revealing. There is an association between the female ability for open communication and the female willingness to gratefully satisfy a man’s horniness on his terms. 


Those who reject, those who welcome. The criteria for this should be assessed (further study report). 


When the provision of sex to a partner becomes a matter of trade it is not a marriage, it is a business contract. 


This was an original definition of the word marriage before the medieval concept of courtly love, courting suitors, and the formal contract of a marriage before consummation on the wedding night. 


The consummation which is the wedding, the ‘joining together as one’. The marriage is the ongoing intention to always return to that union as soon as possible, to always be within its light. To consummate as often as possible. 


An engagement is a dedication to an intended goal. All of the stages of this delaying of instant gratification are the elevation of female empowerment to create a space within which she can accept, study, learn to yield to and learn to control her man, even as he grooms her to be his bride, his bridge, his connection to the bliss. 


An engagement is for her, a time required for her to come to terms with how she must behave to empower the marriage. Which at its core is quite simply is to always yield to him sexually. 


This is the historical perspective. Of course a marriage, any partnership involves factors outside of the bedroom. The practicalities of living together as archetypal people as well as the practicalities and needs of the unique individuals involved. 


We need to understand what this is all about to put into perspective the impact of  modernism and feminism has had on the medieval culture which we inherited and what was its original intended purpose. 


We need to be aware of this to recognise how far we have deviated from it and to see its wisdom and merits as much as any flaws we may perceive from the modern way of thinking. 


What has happened is the purity of marriage in creating lasting, functional relationships has been corrupted and is now being replaced by what is described as a modern marriage. 


A modern marriage is one wherein she has more power to behave as if she is not married but he is still expected to bring to her all of the benefits of marriage, including those of the courtship period of proving his worth by providing and supporting for her.  


He must maintain this even after his having proved it which creates a situation of mistrust and insecurity because non-acceptance of his having been tested. The tests become ongoing. This is perhaps a necessary adaptation to the compromises of modernity. 


This transition began in the latter medieval period, before the discovery of gunpowder.    We see how far the roots of the female empowerment movement go in terms of time and how deep they go in to the bedroom in terms of affecting the sanctity of the pure relationship between man and wife who have sworn a divine oath to serve one another by bringing one another harmony. 


The women’s rights movements that a woman is not merely a sex object has for our generation and culture destroyed this awareness of what it is required to make relationships stable in the historic sense. 


A woman who gives her man sex is respected for doing so. A woman who makes it difficult for him is going to lose him to the women who do give it to him. 


Men need sex. It’s a biological, emotional, psychological and spiritual driving factor of their existence. It is how God and nature made them. To question whether it is spiritual in essence is to question both the divine masculine and sacred sexuality. These items are aspirations of successful people. 


Broken men suppress their own need for sex. A woman who breaks her man is an unhealthy woman as much as a man who breaks his woman is an unhealthy man. Broken women suppress their men’s need for sex. Broken men either don’t take it or take it by force. 


Why do people behave in a dysfunctional, oppressive way to suppress and repress sexuality? 


It serves only one entity; the depopulation agenda. The death cult uses divide and control. It is colonial. It is no surprise how even our marriages are colonies of the death cult. Our minds have been programmed as its agents. 


What is the answer to liberate ourselves from that? 











See also: Female Abandonment Issues


See also: A Prayer to Lakshmi



Monday, 25 March 2024

WhoDoesYourThinking




Who Does Your Thinking?



This essay is in two main components with an afterword. 


1. Sociology which outlines a very common theme in contemporary Western culture,  and

2. Psychology which explores the hidden roots of it using Transactional Analysis. 

3 Afterword. 




  1. Sociology



She has been put into a position where she had to put her Facebook Relationship Status on ‘For Your Eyes Only’ mode so her fiancé could see that was still valid but nobody else could. Everybody else who saw her Facebook status saw no information about her relationship status. This was to appease the critics in her life who wanted her to split up with him. 


There are two reasons: their own jealousy, and because they want her to be under their control, not independent from them by her being more strongly bonded with a partner. She did not stand up for her right to be in a dedicated relationship but instead felt she had been forced into manipulation. For him, manipulation is a sign of a duplicitous personality who can not be trusted. On this basis, when he found out what she was up to, he was offended and made a decision to discuss it with her prior to ending the relationship. To have outright ended the relationship on this basis would have been a knee-jerk reaction albeit an understandable one. 


The same people pressuring her to end the relationship have also pressured him and caused him problems by involving the authorities, all of which bounced off him because the authorities can see it for what it is based on the actual evidence; that her friends and family, her peers, are abusive, jealous women trying to control her. 


This entire statement is re-branded as ‘mansplaining’ in the language of what used to be called radical-feminism but has now been rebranded as normal-feminism due to the extremists activities which used to be considered a form of domestic terrorism but is now considered normalised. The malicious personality traits are being used as agents of agendas of segregation by extremists controlled by a cult which is effectively destroying the stability of this nation under the guise of progressive feminism. 


He believes in a relationship with an equal is a meeting of hearts, minds, bodies and soul. He respects the wisdom of a certificate on the wall of the local Marriage Registry which states; “Marriage is the world between two people to the exclusion of all others.” 


She is not exclusive. She has empowered the fray of peers and community, along with their segregation agendas. 


Both of the bitter, jealous, controlling people in question are themselves in marriages. His role, his intent is to protect her from them. However he has been compromised because she has rights to do what she wants, as endorsed by feminism. He was forced into a position, to protect his relationship. He offered her a hard line. To live in accordance with the confines of empowering a stable, loving relationship or to choose to live in accordance with feminism. She decided to try to have both because Feminism promises she can have both at the detriment of the stable loving relationship. Once again she proved these two disciplines are mutually exclusive. It gets tested almost continuously which is exhausting for everyone involved and amusing to the people throwing spanners into their home life. 



There are two paths before you.

You are in a position of empowerment to choose which path. 

You must choose one. 

You can choose only one.

If you choose and change your mind, the game resets 

but with a handicap and with the couple being regarded to have low integrity. 

If you do not choose, you are not exempt from consequence. 

If you do not choose, others will choose for you. 

If you do not choose, you are regarded to have no agency therefore are of low integrity. 


On one track, there is your loving fiancé.

On the other track, there are a community of bitter people, some of whom already are married and some whom hate men, all of whom want to split you up from your fiancé.

You must choose which to sacrifice. 

If you change your mind, you will have sacrificed both. 

The handicap to that is you will be regarded as having low-integrity. 

 

Having a high integrity relationship is a form of empowerment. 

You are deciding what to empower. 


The reason this equation is valid is because there are only so many hours in a day to decide where to put your attention. Attention is energy. It is a form of currency. We are powerful energies, which is why others seek to control us and society teaches us we are worthless, as a tool to control us.  


The critical question is; 

do you want a fiancé, or 

do you want to be owned by the community of jealous people who want to control you? 


The jealous people will describe marriage as slavery. Remember, half of them are already married themselves but for whatever reason which is nothing to do with you they have not ended their  own marriages. 


People living in fear do not trust the Divine. 

They are ‘Godless’ and disconnected from Source, Spirit, the holistic nature of reality. 

They turn instead of false idols to worship, to cults, 

such as for example the theories and philosophies of extremism and social agendas, 

or to false friends and manipulative relations. 


A successful marriage is one where the partners listen to each other and not to outside voices persuading them to cause friction within their family home. 


When people are diagnosed with Personality Disorders it is very often because they cause friction for other people, to disrupt the Harmony. 


The very fact that she chose to listen to them and not to her loving fiancé is all the evidence required to prove she does not respect marriage nor men. The string of men who she exploits along the way who are not scared off by her friends and relatives are persecuted at a higher stake by those same people, even when it bounces off them. The amount of problems those people are causing for men because they do not respect men adds to the mens stress associated with dating the girl in the first place. It is damaging antisocial behaviour. 


She could have simply said to them;


“That’s my boyfriend and I love him, leave him alone, he means more to me than you do.” 


But she is too afraid of the consequence, were she to raise self-respect boundaries to protect herself and her chosen life-partner, the world they are building together. The sociopaths would raise the stakes and cause even more problems for them as they observe her slipping out of their control.


She plays this game for self-validation. 





  1. Psychology



She plays this game for self-validation. 


At the core of it is the female psychology which women known too well. 



Women emotionally exist on a spectrum, along a line of neurosis at one end and princess at the other. This is Yin energy. 


What stabilises her is the masculine assertive Yang energy, which either boosts her toward princess or toward neurosis. Women love and fear Yang depending how safe they feel with it, and seek to control it the same way men seek to control and understand the feminine quality of Yin yielding energy.  There are two sources of Yin and Yang which affect the balance of our own Yin and Yang; internal self-harmony, external other peoples influence. 


This explains why women are drawn to some men but fear others, and men are drawn to some women but not others. Yin and Yang naturally work to harmonise with each other. 



There are four quadrants each with its own expression; 

Fearful yin (vulnerable dependant & vulnerable narcissism) - black hole 

Confident yin (classical femininity, the worlds most treasured healing energy) - soothing star, life-nurturing 

Fearful yang (overt domination) - exploding or collapsing star

Confident yang (assured protection) - radiant star, life-giving 


The question then, what brings confidence?

The answer is stability. Inner stability feels like inner peace. 

It is to have trust in the universe as a beneficial provider. 

This is the best place to place trust. 



Most relationships are not so clear and simple as to be black and white. 

They are entanglements which function on many levels of being. 


What creates a perception into a specific dimension of awareness? 

Experiences. 


Trauma-bonding creates connections on sub-Dom, passive-aggressive, push-you-pull-me levels of relating. In todays society, we basically as a generalisation all have varying trauma. We all function on a mish-mash of unregulated and non-identifiable levels of trauma-bond which we project outward onto others. 


Social agendas will program us to shut down such complications on one side (marriage counselling methods) or the other (segregational feminism). 




  1. Afterword



The resolution is always going to be open, honest communication about feelings and practicalities. 

Of course, situations where the clash of mixed necessities and compromises built on compromises are going to be used as leverage for energy-manipulation unless you can gain sufficient empowerment for a clean break.


This fosters for the society of ‘mutual self-interest’ where people are disposable, replaceable and expendable having fulfilled purpose. This creates a pandemic of Narcissism.



"The problem is people treat things like people and people like things." anon


"The problem today is people don't cherish good people, they try to use them." Bob Marley.


"Evil begins when you begin to treat people as things." Sir Terry Pratchett.


"The greatness of a man is not in how much wealth he acquires, 

but in his integrity and his ability to affect those around him positively." Bob Marley. 




How do we defeat that? 


Respect for one another needs. 

Reinforcing the institute of happy marriages instead of destroying it.

You can see what the enemy to community is when you have the Humanitarian understanding which defines us as Being Humans.






  


SHOULD I STAY OR SHOULD I GO?

Five questions to ask before deciding whether to end your relationship or not. 




Saturday, 24 February 2018

Sex Check List

Checklist For Sexual Compatibility


QUESTION ZERO: 

 Have you/they had an STD check 
since the last time you/they had a sexual encounter? 



SECTION ONE - YOU

First three simple questions.

1. Do you want sex ?  y / n

2. Could you fancy this person ?  y / n

3. Would you have sex with this person ?  y / n

Three “yes” ’s = do it
Two or less “yes” ‘s = do not do it

1 If No: there is something wrong with this person, they are disconnected from their Humanity.
2 If No: no problems, biological instinct is what it is.
3 If No: (when 1 & 2 are “yes”) this person is inhibited by a psychosis.

That’s it for keeping things simple.


SECTION TWO - OTHERS


The ‘three yes vs less-than-three-yes’ guide (section one) does not apply to the following (section two) because it gets more complicated.

The following questions are what happens when you start compromising what you want sexually with who you want to be known as in the community. Balancing your internal desire with your external image. Manipulation ‘by you of’ and ‘of you by’ community.

The counterpoise to this situation is the rhetorical question:

X. ’Who is it I am in bed with / closest to / should mean the most to me ?’

This question has not been numbered because it is too personal to include as data for this manuscript, although it is imperative the individual should ask it of themselves regularly. All other questions are simple y / n responses.


4. Would my friends accept me having sex with this person ? y / n

The answer to this is ALWAYS ‘no’ unless you have real friends who do not mix ‘sex and slavery’.


The next two questions are about hypergamy. They balance self-worth with social-status, clinically basing decision-making only on the artifice of social structure while ignoring the complexity of Human needs, personality compatibility, physical preference. Hypergamy reinforces the delusion of class system maintained by active belief in it. Typically this is financial or perceived power thus such relationships are about power and wealth, not about emotional and individual value. That includes yours. Hypergamy elevates manipulation and does not accept emotion as a relevant factor, resulting in strategic yet emotionless or at best shallow sexual relations. That does not result in happiness, it usually results in divorce. This underlaying trust issue categorically defines such relationships.

5. Would sex with this person improve my position in society (is it prestigious) ? y / n
If Yes do it.

6. Would sex with this person decrease my position in society (is it detrimental) ? y / n
If Yes do not do it.


The next question is the main one you need to answer.
It affects every aspect of relationships.

7. Does this person mix up sex with slavery ? y / n

If Yes, either ‘fuck&chuck’ or simply do not have sex with them at all.
If No, keep it going as a long-term relationship.
Hold onto it because true equity/equality is precious and rare, to be treasured.


8. What Slavery Is and is Not

Is slavery: expectancy of undisclosed behaviour ?
Is slavery: expectancy of routine behaviour ? 


If you can not answer these questions (8A and 8B), you are not ready for a long-term relationship.
That does not mean you are not ready to have sex.
Fully answering these two questions SHOULD be an ongoing topic of conversation between yourself and partner/s.
Develop a mutual understanding of what exactly is meant by ‘undisclosed and routine behaviour’.
Discuss and communicate what is meant by ‘communication’.


SECTION THREE - CASTES

Tribal Attitudes May Vary.

HUMANITY asks these questions:  1 3 7 8

CULTURE asks these questions:  2 4 7 8

SOCIETY asks these questions:  3 4 5 6

Society represses these questions:  7 8



DISCLAIMER

This manuscript is in no way a complete thesis or is it to be taken as one.
It does not necessarily represent the beliefs of its author.
It is not to be regarded as relationship or life advice.
It is intended for amusement purposes only. 
Self-responsibility is respectability.

©2018    The author is an academically qualified relationship counselor and sex therapist.

Thursday, 3 August 2017

StoneWall

STONEWALLING AND COMMUNITY

Preface

I write from the perception of a counsellor concerned with the impact social engineering employed to divide-and-control which creates an imbalance in society, resulting in the destruction of community, to provide leverage for further exploitation of individuals. If you are an individual this is directly relevant to you.


“Gray Rock” is a technique promoted by fifth-wave feminists * following third-wave principles.

third wave is anti-male, female supremacy strategies.

fourth wave feminism is a rejection of fem-dom and a focus on female related issues.

fifth wave is use of technological communication to manipulate society on a 1-1 and small group basis. This is precisely how cults work. It offers the manipulator a chance to interfere and retreat with no responsibility. It is an ideal situation for Narcissists to enjoy their methods for empowerment-by-control-and-destruction.

Popular within the contemporary communications technology community is the dynamic between Narcissist and Empath. A cultural terminology has emerged expressing our life situations in these terms and it is a method of indoctrination for the purpose of agenda based manipulation. This does not mean there are not cases where it is relevant and useful. It has also unveiled the scope by which manipulation is occurring throughout society to reprogram people to become less empathic and more narcissistic in their behaviour toward each other. Most especially this is aimed at encouraging females to resent males, playing on the foundation of gender based division.

Personally I believe that genders are complimentary, and phrases such as “battle of the sexes” encourage sexism and division. Communities thrive best where there is harmony, not division. The complimentary gender is 50% of the people on this planet. That is unlikely to change simply because of a personal prejudice and encouragement from hardline extremists using com-tech to brainwash a generation.

#GenderlessEquality is not the same thing at all as trans-gender.



Stonewalling And Community


Narcissistic Method

Stonewalling somebody without explaining to them why they are being stonewalled is a method used by narcissists to protect themselves against those who they perceive as narcissists. The result is the target (the one being stonewalled) does not know why the stonewaller is doing it, and assumes them either to be acting irrationally or to be manipulated into acting on misinformation as an attempt to socially isolate the target as a part of a victimisation campaign (Hate Crime by proxy).

Whatever affront the target did to the person doing the stonewalling, is going to be repeated endlessly until somebody points it out to them that a specific aspect of their behaviour was wrong. NB it is not the person, it is the behaviour - these are two distinct and different entities as is taught in childcare. All of us have a social duty and a duty to self to continually improve our behaviour with relation to other people. It helps vastly more when we are aware what behaviour is perceived as wrong, than it does when the target does not know at all.

A person who has been stonewalled with no concept of why, is going to be confused, offended and will not be able to work on improving themselves or recognizing where they might need to improve - if at all.

Anybody encouraging stonewalling with no explanation is actively divide-and-control, is attempting to control the one doing the stonewalling. An intelligent person (A) would question why person B is encouraging them to avoid person C and to put both person A and C into this position.

If you Stonewall somebody for no apparent reason - you are the sociopath.


Alternatively:


Empathic Method

Stonewalling somebody after explaining why they are being stonewalled is a method used by empaths concerned with improving the social conditions we all experience. It establishes a dynamic by which healing can develop and progress can be made within the community. The target can work on the problem because the target knows what the problem is. It also exposes where stonewalling is a reaction to misperception or as result of manipulation of the stonewaller by a third party.

If the target (the person being stonewalled) asks “Why am I being stonewalled” this immediately indicates that the target does not understand and cares enough to want to fix the situation.



StoneWall As Abuse Tactic

Stonewalling is an abusive technique. If you need time out from your relationship, you state that you need time out. If the partner ignores that then stonewalling may become necessary. Stonewalling is the abrupt and final end of a relationship.

To stonewall somebody for a perceived sleight without explaining the problem or for no serious reason at all is the methodology of a narcissist who has decided to drop one of their sources of energy (“supply”). There is only one reason a narcissist would do this; self protection, to avoid exposure. Discredition of the threat is a standard reaction. "I had to stonewall him/her poor me!" solicits sympathy by way of securing new supply. 

A full exploration of how humans use each other as sources of energy can be found in The Games People Play by Dr Eric Berne. Make it the next book you read. It is easy to understand the principles and strategies which develop for purpose of energy supply. It is as relevant today as ever, although the use of modern communications technologies has given us a different arena and the emergence of different strategies (see fifth-wave feminism).



My Experience of StoneWall

I have both stonewalled people and been stonewalled by them. The Block function on facebook is stonewalling. It is useful to avoid any unwanted attention from abusers. People who I have been stonewalled by, who later explained their justification for doing so fall into three categories:

- genuinely had a good reason (fortunately I have had very few of these if any)
- was/is playing control games which I have challenged/exposed, so has stonewalled me as attempt to cover it up (including labelling me as an abuser to justify their own abusive actions)
- was manipulated by a third party who sought to disable their support network of which I was included by persuading them I was a threat.


When you weigh up these three reasons, these are the questions you need to ask when stonewalling a person. Why am I stonewalling this person? And; Is the right thing to do for myself, the target and society at large, to explain to the person why they are being stonewalled?


PostScript

A genuine healer heals the whole, holistically, rather than isolating components. You only cut out a cancer if it is definitely identified as a cancer and not a support. Most people are in real life situations which involve elements of both - we are beyond Disney Princess Syndrome which is a meme used for leverage. This is symptomatic of the society we live in as much as it is symptomatic of the cPTSD so many of us have as a result of trauma from the society we live in.

The Positivist Agenda is to create no more trauma and to heal that we have suffered, for the benefit of individual and community. Society is your enemy, Community is your friend. Community is holistic and non-exclusive. When it becomes so, it is no longer community, it is a sub-culture of Society. This is the only rational Humanistic approach we can take toward healing ourselves and others without harbouring fear and hatred toward specific individuals. We all know that fear and hatred are toxic.

Q. Who gains from fear and hatred?
A. Those who exploit others for personal gain.



See also:





Energy Games

The Games People Play by Dr Eric Berne

ISBN: 0-345-41003-3
Published by Grove Press

Transactional Analysis of Social Psychology

Dr Eric Berne teaches a very basic system for;

1 recognising: how people interact.
2 what happens when we do, in terms of ‘energy’ shifting from person to person.
3 establishing a perception from which we can observe that energy does shift between people, and that this phenomena forms a foundation of how people create and manipulate situations to enable them to shift energy in their own favour.

Games People Play was published in 1964 and is no less relevant today. The social focus has shifted, the jargon we use in 2017 is different to that used in 1964, and yet the situation is the same. The basic model created by Dr Berne is the same and is still highly useful in assessing interpersonal situations. The model reveals underlaying structures and dynamics of social scenarios.

I use its guidance often. Combined with my own experiences and the knowledge base from another book called The Celestine Prophecy by James Redfield which teaches about what happens when people are low- and high- on energy, the different worlds we manifest, this forms the basis of my world view.

My specialist focus is on exposing abuse and establishing methods to deal with it holistically. This has made me both friends and enemies. There are two camps - those who work positively to create energy for the betterment of all (Service to Others) are those who fight for Humanitarian ideals, and those who exploit individuals for service to dysfunction (Service to Self) are those who abuse and permit abuse.  

"If you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem."


The rules of the boardgame Diplomacy are very similar to the basic interpersonal model by Dr Berne. They both operate a black/white step-by-step structural outline in minimalist terms to observe  the flow and exploitation of energy between people and groups of people, and how various strategies develop to manipulate this for personal gain and/or communal gain. The conclusion of Diplomacy is that alliances and stability are more important, desirable, successful than are power, control and domination. This is compatible with the conclusion of Games People Play which is that successful people do not play (energy control) games.


See also:

Monday, 23 January 2017

4 Types

 The 4 Types of People


Avoiding the complexities and refinements of MBTI, in basic terms there are 4 types of people:

1 Those who get to know you. Good or bad, these are Genuine.
2 Those who lie about you (Strawman Creators). These are Abusers.
3 Those who believe the lies (Strawman Zombies). These are Egotists.
4 Indifferent. Simply couldn't care if you exist one way or another.


Types 2 and 3 cross over a lot. They are people trapped in 'mind' and are more judgemental (for example, by reputation instead of personally) and are limited in their abilities to be holistic assimilators (they assess conditionally within limited criteria, reliant on assumption and mis-information).

Type 1 is beyond 'mind' and generally functions from higher perception (intuition). They are less judgemental and more empathic in their way of being.


This has nothing to do with who you are 'friends' with, however you criteria that.

At least this is how I have come to regard people after all the shit they have put me through (slander campaigns, envy>malice, etc) and the few occasions where a handful of them have helped vastly.


Types 2 and 3:
Classical, clinical description of "delusional":

adjective
a.
having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions:
b.
Psychiatry. maintaining fixed false beliefs even when confronted with facts, usually as a result of mental illness:

http://www.dictionary.com/browse/delusional

"Who is the bigger fool? The fool, or the fool who follows?"
-Obi Wan Kenobi


Somebody posted into FB today the question:

"Are we living in a Dystopia?”

I opine that we are, in social terms, based on that a minority of people are sane, while a majority of people are delusional, and that the delusional people persecute the sane people, describing that their 'difference from normal' is spurious on the basis that it is 'different from normal' - which itself is the example proving they are using delusional thinking strategies for their judgement criteria.


"Circular reasoning (Latin: circulus in probando, "circle in proving"; also known as circular logic) is a logical fallacy in which the reasoner begins with what they are trying to end with. The components of a circular argument are often logically valid because if the premises are true, the conclusion must be true."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circular_reasoning



Wednesday, 19 February 2014

Transhuman Tribalism




http://psychology.wikia.com/wiki/Tribalism

Transhuman Tribalism

Development of an artificial brain which a) mimics a human brain in that it can understand more than 150 individuals in terms of tribalism without resorting to hierarchical and stereotypical schemes, as does the human brain.

This allays human fear that a machine consciousness will have no respect for the individual and regard us as depersonalized 'units'.

Any artificial brain not being simply an advanced calculator capable only of hierarchical and stereotypical comprehension of the human condition necessarily must be aware of (unlimited?) number of individuals on an individual basis. This requires one to one personal interaction (as opposed clinical observation) with (any and all of) those individuals.

This is a place where an AI can achieve what a government cannot.  





Neo-Tribalism & Neo-Primitivism